Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Chris Schuler, post: 3022990, member: 93961&quot;]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&#039;m inclined to go with the traditional view. The whole thrust of Aurelian&#039;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&#039;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 &quot;silver&quot; 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&#039;re so rare that they can&#039;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.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in