Apologize for the photos in advance. I have had this Aurelian for some years and it bothers me that it appears to match the description of reduced sestertius but weighs in at 4.9 grams. From what I can find that is pretty light. Is this just at the very lowest end of the weight spectrum or what? I thought the mints had been sorted by the time these were minted.
Most I have seen have been 6-8g range, so that is low, but it does look correct for the type. Could be just light. I've had to many coins weigh less then they should for the period, even tetradrachms being half of what they would be in their period of mintage. Nice coin though, I like it a lot.
Not sure. What would you say, about 23 or 24mm? I have several Aurelian Antoninianus of similar size. For example: AURELIAN Antoninianus OBVERSE: IMP AVRELIANVS AVG, radiate cuirassed bust right REVERSE: IOVI CONSER, emperor standing right, holding short sceptre, receiving globe from Jupiter, standing left, holding long sceptre. Q in ex Struck at Siscia, 272-4 AD 3.5g, 20mm RIC V 225 AURELIAN Antoninianus OBVERSE: IMP C AVRELIANVS AVG, radiate bust right REVERSE: RESTITVT ORBIS, female on the left presents a wreath to Aurelian, holding a sceptre, Gamma in ex. Struck at Antioch,270-5 AD 3.6g, 22mm RIC V 386
Hey, that's pretty cool. I just assumed it was an ant. If I knew they were still making the sestertius at the time of Aurelian, I had forgotten.
Mine weighs 7.8g. The matching Severina below is 8.3g. Diameter makes you think of an as but sestertius is probably correct this late.
Here's my reduced sestertius of Severina, though MER/RIC calls it an as: Severina, AD 270-275 Roman AE as or reduced sestertius, 5.85 gm, 26.7 mm Rome, issue 11, AD 275 Obv: SEVERINA AVG, diademed and draped bust right Rev: IVNO REGINA, Juno standing left, holding patera and scepter; peacock at feet; S in exergue. Refs: RIC 7; MER/RIC temp 1879; RCV 11711; Cohen 9; MIR 147.
I recently bought a pair of these coins - one of Aurelian and one of Severina. They were traditionally considered to be asses on account of their size, but recent numismatic scholarship has reclassified these 25mm coins as reduced sestertii. While I have an open mind on the subject and will gladly change my opinion if presented with convincing evidence, I'm inclined to go with the traditional view. The whole thrust of Aurelian's currency reform was to restore the coinage to its state 50 years earlier, under Caracalla. The antoninianus, which had become a small, scrappy bronze coin with a thin surface wash of silver, was made larger and rounder; the denarius was reintroduced, again at its former size. While he couldn't restore the silver content even to its debased level under Caracalla, the surface silvering was improved, so it looked better and lasted longer. The aim was clearly to make the "silver" coinage look like it had done half a century earlier - at least until the plating wore off. Then why make the sestertii so much smaller? Issuing large bronze coins made no sense in terms of metal content when the ant was 95% bronze - but it made sense in restoring confidence in the currency. And Aurelian DID issue sestertii of about 31-33mm diameter. They're so rare that they can't have formed a significant element of the currency in circulation, but their existence, alongside the other denominations, restored the structure of the old currency, at least nominally.
