Featured "Restored" Legionary Denarius of Mark Antony

A general question for everyone: how many other Imperial denarii are there (if any) with no portrait, or any kind of figural representation at all of a human being or deity? I know there are lesser denominations like that, but I was wondering specifically about denarii.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

An intriguing question Donna. I think this is the closest I can get,
although the tiny figures of Victory may disqualify me !


Augustus AR Denarius. 27 BC - AD 14. Spanish mint (Colonia Patricia?), circa 18 BC. Aquila, toga picta over tunica palmata, and wreath; S•P•Q•R• PAR(ENT) above, CONS•SVO below / Slow quadriga right, the car ornamented at front and on side with Victories and surmounted by four miniature horses galloping right; CAESA(RI )above, AVGVST(O) below. RIC 99; BMCRE 397; RSC 78. 3.63g, 18mm, 5h

 

Sometimes the "losers" become famous and popular in their own right, especially if the "winners" are for some reason unpopular and often after the passing of time has made those losers larger than life. Compare this to the Stone Mountain commemorative half.

 

Hi All,

Does anyone know if one could trade-in an original Antony legionary denarius for a restored denarius? I know the older denarius type was grandfathered for use as current, even though they were of lesser purity and often heavily worn. Were the old ones used at a discount even though they were nominally equal? I’m out of my depth here and would be happy to get steered to the right material to learn for myself.

- Broucheion

 

Thank you! I expected other examples, if any, to be from early on -- and to resemble Republican coins -- so I'm not surprised. I don't think the tiny figures of Victory disqualify your coin any more than the four tiny sailors' heads disqualify mine!

 

pur-D!!

 

Here's an awful leg. Can't even figure out which legion it is. But, at least it looks real.

 

Nice example @DonnaML. Like you, I also started with a Restored Marcus Antonius denarius many years ago, before attempting a small collection of the contemporary issues. This is the example now in my collection.

 

There are some, but not many I think. E.g. this one, this one, this one (although the guys in the quadriga is Octavian so doesn't really count I guess...), and mine (also shown above), all of Augustus.


There are also some coins in the civil war of 68-69, such as by Clodius Macer. After that, I'm having difficulty thinking of other denarii, beside your coin.

 

Thank you. So the restored Antony denarius seems to be unique in this respect after the first century -- and pretty much stands alone after Augustus, except for some of the 68-69 coinage.

 

I have one of those restoration myself.


They have found hoards from early third century with the orignial legionary denarii in them. While it is speculation on my part, I can see why they choose to do a coin from the losing side. After 200 years, I doubt most people had any sore feeling over the battle and these coins may have been looked on fondly. Just look at how the US mint sold out 200,000 to 300,000 100th anniversary Morgan and Peace dollars in under 25 minutes. Compared to denarii of the time, it just probably struck a cord with people.

Then why did they not do more of this? Simple, each coin is one less coin of the man in charge

What I actually find more interesting is that these coins were not issued during the Trajan restoration. He had no problems with reissuing from both sides (Pompey and Julius Caesar), it was rather extensive but this type never made the cut.

 

Based on hoard finds, it's estimated that Antony's legionary denarii accounted for as much as 30% of the total circulating denarii as late as the 2nd century... 200 years after they were produced. But they go even later: The Shapwick hoard of the 3rd century was still 3% legionary denarii. So, these coins were so incredibly numerous that they had become a part of Roman monetary life and culture for centuries. Generations of Romans will have had these coins in their purses.

I think the most compelling reason for why these denarii were restored given their somewhat unflattering imagery is that they were simply so numerous that they'd become indistinguishable from money itself. Sort of like an American picking up a dollar bill and seeing George Washington on it -- even if you don't know a single thing about the Revolutionary War or the first president, you know that this is what a dollar is "supposed" to look like. So, restoring them means you change out all the increasingly worn money in peoples hands with money that they're familiar with, but that isn't worn.

There's an article here that you might be interested in, it goes into this in more detail: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26637375

 

Searching CT will turn up several discussions of the type. The reason the originals lasted so long in circulation is that they were struck from a base alloy making them less desirable to people who knew the difference. Bad coin drives good coin out of circulation and by the time the alloy caught up, they were so worn that they still were less desirable than the current coin.


Yes, there are many Antony fakes including some high grade and deceptive ones also discussed on CT on occasion. Add to that, there are quite a few ancient fakes of the fourree persuasion. Actually all types of Antony coinage are common in fourree.

Looking at the philosophy of Marcus Aurelius, I'm not all that sure that he would have been a big fan of Augustus either. Those of you into historical fiction surely remember the movie Gladiator with the plot that Aurelius wanted to restore the Republic. That is complete fiction but I can see how Hollywood would come up with that plot line.

Below is my entry in the worn out legionary contest. I can't make out the legion number.

 

What about Mommsen's explanation of these restored legionary denarii of Mark Antony, which seems to me convincing, unless it has been refuted by recent research that I haven't yet read:

Restored silver coins were usually replacements for originals that the government had decided to withdraw from circulation, because debasement had occurred so that the old coins now contained more silver than the current ones, and a profit could be made by melting them down and restriking the same metal at the new reduced standard.

Dio Cassius reports that around 107 AD Trajan "melted down all the worn out coinage." This was probably the occasion of his issue of restored denarii copying a large number of Republican coin types.

But Trajan, as far as we know today, did not restore Mark Antony's legionary denarii, while in contrast only that one type was restored by Marcus and Verus between 161 and Verus' death in 169. Mommsen's explanation: Trajan omitted Mark Antony from his recoinage, so didn't withdraw or restore that type, because Antony's denarii were known to contain less silver than any other Republican denarius type, so no satisfactory profit could be made by recoining their metal at the time. But by the 160s the denarius standard had fallen further, making it profitable for the emperors to withdraw the surviving legionary denarii and recoin their metal, an operation that they commemorated by selecting one of the relevant legionary denarius types to restore.

Two tests which could either confirm or refute this explanation: the amount of silver in a denarius must have fallen considerably between c. 107 and the 160s AD; and hoards buried after the 160s should contain a reduced percentage of original legionary denarii of Mark Antony.

 

Did Mommsen address the "200th anniversary of Actium" theory? Did he think that was just a coincidence?

 

Donna,

I don't think the "anniversary" theory had been proposed by Mommsen's day.

I doubt he would have been persuaded, however!

If Marcus and Verus wanted to commemorate that anniversary, why not state the fact plainly, rather than copy a coin type of one of the commanders, adding the statement that Marcus and Verus had restored the type?

 

According to Butcher and Ponting, The Denarius in the Second Century, Num. Chron. 2012, pp. 73-4, the fineness of the denarius was lowered late in the reign of Antoninus Pius, perhaps enough (my suggestion not theirs) to make it profitable for Marcus and Verus to recoin Antony's legionary denarii between 161 and 169.

Their results: From his accession in 138 until 156, the denarii of Antoninus Pius were issued on the first Neronian standard of fineness of c. 79%, the same as Trajan's denarii from 99-117, and Hadrian's denarii from 128-138.

In 156, however, the fineness of the denarius decreased to about 74%, and in 157 to 70%, where it remained until Antoninus' death in 161 and then for most of the reign of Marcus Aurelius.

 

A few questions for Curtis or anyone who has something to say:

Has anyone done a metal study of the Trajan restorations? Do they match the regular issues? Do the known examples come mixed with other coins or have they survived separately?

The Reka Devnia hoard totals list 29 Mark Antony denarii but 20 of them were the Restorations which seems about right for a regular issue mixed into normal circulation. Do you see any significance in this number? Nine very worn coins (4 slick) in the huge hoard suggests long circulation before they were added to the chest.

When do Antony coins start being found in mixed hoards? I would expect them to be spent rather than saved for the most part until they were demonetized (first by Trajan or did they get removed earlier?). Of course this answer might be better if we considered if the hoard seemed to be a savings account rather than a cash register or charitable donation.

Somewhere earlier in this thread, someone asked why Aurelius/Verus issued the 200 year coin in the form of the Antony rather than a coin of Augustus or, perhaps, Agrippa. I can't help thinking someone enjoyed the need to spell out Antonius and Augur. Opinion?

 

Doug,

Could you explain to us why you pass over Mommsen's theory that, as their legend declares, the denarii of Marcus and Verus were restored coins just like the restored republican denarii of Trajan?

Because of the low silver content of the originals, Mommsen proposed that their recoinage was not undertaken by Trajan, but only by Marcus and Verus, with the purpose not to commemorate the anniversary of the battle of Actium, but simply to make a profit for the emperors.

The restored republican denarii of Trajan are all so rare that I'd be surprised if more than half a dozen of them have turned up in all recorded hoards. Walker analyzed the three specimens in the Oxford collection for his Metrology of the Roman Silver Coinage (1977), but his results are now generally recognized as being invalid due to his failure to avoid the problem of surface enrichment.

 

We were told that Trajan demonetized 'old money' removing it from circulation. To accept the theory presented, we need hoard evidence that Antony coins were left in circulation when Trajan skimmed off the coins of the Republic and early empire. Did Trajan touch only the 90% silver and ignore the 85% coins? By what mechanism were the coins removed? Were people given new Trajan coins for their old Caligulas but not their Flavian or Antony issues?