Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Heliodromus, post: 7772628, member: 120820"]In this case, in 318 AD,  I think it was the newly increased silver content of the coins that triggered widespread counterfeiting. At other times it may also have been profit potential that lured counterfeiters, but due to reduced weight standards meaning more profit per pound of bronze. The nummus had been introduced by Diocletian with an approximate 5% silver content, but by the time of Constantine had already been reduced to something more like 1-2%. The VLPP, and associated types introduced at the same time, must have essentially been a new denomination since it had a silver content increased back to the 4-5% range, and must have had a corresponding increase in face value from the preceding 1-2% silver coinage. This increased face value was apparently enough to make base-metal counterfeits profitable. It's interesting to note that the VLPP design, as well as the emperor-on-eagle design used for Licinius (and a quadriga type for Daia), had initially been introduced at Trier in 313 AD ("Trier billion") with a 20% silver content, but evidentially never caught on as a new denomination. Constantine then reintroduced these designs (minus the Daia type), now with a reduced 4-5% silver content, in 318 AD. Perhaps he just liked the designs, or perhaps he hoped acceptance of the new coinage's face value would be boosted by association with the earlier types. It's also interesting to note that Diocletian's original 5% silver nummus, unlike the 5% silver VLPP, was rarely counterfeited. Presumably at least part of the reason was that the material costs to make the earlier heavier coins, given their value at the time, hadn't looked as attractive to the counterfeiter as the profit equation for the VLPPs.[/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches