Roman coins

Please excuse my ignorance but I have a few questions. I have collected US coins for years but after watching "ROME" I have developed an interest in ancient roman coins. I am interested in the shadow emperior Romulus Agustus. There were only gold and silver coins minted at three mints. I think at Arles, Ravenna and Dalmatia. The mint I am interested in is Dalmatia. I think I have the spelling right or at least close. Are there any roman coin collectors in here?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Hello,

According to Roman coins and their values, 1988 edition, the three mints for Romulus Augustulus are Arelate, Ravenna and Rome. His coins are VERY rare and VERY VERY expensive

Cucumbor

 

I seldom see any of his coins for sell and when I do they are always way over my budget...I fear it will be very very hard to fill that spot in my collection...thing is, they are not very attractive coins either, just so rare.

 

Thanks Drusus for the info regarding this emperior. I am interested because these coins were minted when the Western Empire was at the beginning of collapse. Too expensive to me would be $20,000+. Am I in the range if I wanted to buy this type of coin? I would not even consider if the coin was not graded by a top tier. I don't think he held the title Augustus for long.

 

Well, I would say it was well past the beginning of the collapse but as for price, the top example was estimated at around 21,000 USD and would no doubt sell for more now and the lower example was estimated at 15,000 USD but sold for 20,000 USD and would also no doubt sell for more as both are very very scarce as are all of his coins...at the moment I do not know of any of his coins for sale at any of the places I haunt and have only seen 3-4 examples of his coins in all the online archives...two of which are posted here

 

You probably won't find any graded by a TPG. AFAIK ICG (& maybe ANACS) would be the only of the 'top four' that would even slab an ancient coin. Most ancients collectors are pretty anti slab so you don't see many 'graded' coins out there. You might be more likely to find one certified by David Sear.

In general a coin like this will be available at one of the bigger auctions CNG, Triton, Gemini, etc.

This one went for $37,500 (in 2007)...
http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?LotID=165432&AucID=203&Lot=481

This one went for about $62,040 (in 2006)...
http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?LotID=140937&AucID=167&Lot=634

This one went for $20,000 (in 2004)...
http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?LotID=75621&AucID=80&Lot=1661

This one went for about $35,184 (in 2003)...
http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?LotID=117985&AucID=137&Lot=1146

This one went for about $21,745 (in 2002)...
http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?LotID=40839&AucID=44&Lot=363

This one went for about $7,495 (in 2000)...
http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?LotID=10441&AucID=9&Lot=947

 

Thanks to all who responded to my thread. How would one tell if some nefarious person took a real coin, make an impression and then a die to stamp a slug of hot gold? Coin minting back then was primitive so it should not be hard to manufacture fakes. Remember that I am new to this area of collecting and am only seeking advice. I remember 25 years ago a good friend of mine asked another coin dealer friend of mine to get him a silver Alexander the Great denarius (excuse my spelling). It was about the size of a dime and my coin collector friend sold it to him for $40. I have checked these coins and they go way above what my friend paid for it. Leading me to believe that there is great potential in this field of coin collecting.

 

Hello alwayslost,

Considering you are new to this, and don't seem to have great knowledge at coin collecting (correct me if I'm wrong), I would try first to increase my knowledge, and collect in some "easier" area before diving in the 20,000 + range...
It's so easy to be fooled or croocked even knowing well a subject, that I imagine the seller thinking "I see you coming" when presenting yourself as the naive guy with 20,000 bucks saying "do your best I don't know nothing at your stuff"

Cucumbor

 

Buy coins from a reputable dealer is a fairly good way of making sure that you get the real thing, if you decide to widen your interests why not look at Celtic coins

De Orc

 

There are certainly people out there who make a great living screwing collectors with fakes. That's why it's important to buy from reputable sources like dealers on VCoins (no time limit for returns on items later determined fake).

The big time auctions CNG, Gemini, Triton, Markov, etc (regular auctions with printed catalogs & buyers fees, etc., not eBay) have some of the most knowledgeable folks in the business on staff to check over their lots, but still fakes make it into those auctions (& a lot of times you have only a limited time to request a return if a coin is thought fake), most of the time they're caught ahead of the auction, but I doubt they always are. A certification service like David Sear's is going to be a much more accurate & worthwhile way to determine authenticity than any of the TPG's out there. The British Museum won't guarantee anything, but will (or at least would) take a look at something questionable & offer an opinion too. Sometimes just posting the auction photo will be enough for someone to help you out (it's very doubtful you'll find one of these outside of an auction).

One of the biggest way to avoid fakes is by just seeing lots & lots of coins and really knowing your particular area of interest. Also pay attention to the fakes section on Forum Ancient Coins (you can get a good education right there). The Forgery Network is another place to look around & Ancients.info is starting to get more fakes posts too. It's quite scary how good some of the high end fakes are.

An Alexander coin the size of a dime would be a drachm & $40 for one 25 years ago sounds right, probably. You can get very nice VF-EF examples for as low as $100-$200 now depending on where it was minted, etc. (some can cost quite a bit more).


Hope some of that's helpful

 

Even the big auction houses will rarely have this emperor...online archives only have sparse examples ....and who would want the coin slabbed Send it to Sears if you fear the authenticity....

and take the advice here....I would get much more familiar with ancients before I spend 10,000+ on one...Forum Ancient Coins is a great place to start.

 

Romulus Augustulus was not quite the last Roman Emperor.Does anyone know if there were any coins issued during the short reign of Emperor Julius Nepos (475-80 AD)? He was the very last Roman Emperor before the barbarians overran Italy & sacked Rome.

Aidan.

 

There are coins of Julius Nepos out there.

Nepos was Augustus 474-475, Romulus Augustus was Augustus 475-476, however the Eastern Empire continued to recognize Nepos as the Western Emperor until his death in 480 (deposed Emperor from 475-480). They never recognized Romulus who was seen as a usurper until he was deposed by the Herulian Odoacer.

So I guess depending on how you look at it Nepos was the last Western Emperor & Romulus was a usurper or Romulus was the last Emperor after overthrowing Nepos in 475.

 

Romulus Augustulus was merely the son of Orestes and his reign was very insignificant and pretty undistinguished as he was just a puppet and young kid. Orestes is the one who drove Nepos into exile and ruled. Nepos, I would say, was the last legitimate roman emperor and that would still be a stretch. He continued to not only continued to rule, in absentia, from Dalmatia, and even had coins issued in his name in Italy (by Odovacar) until he died.

 

The Augustulus is an anglicization. Romulus Augustus is, if I'm not mistaken the correct name.

 

You are right though I believe he was commonly referred to as Augustulus which is the name I usually use as most histories I read use that name (like using Caligula instead of Gaius) it is not an Anglicization of his name, it is the diminutive of Augustus and means in Latin 'little Augustus' which is what he became commonly know as...and it mean little as in 'unimportant' as opposed to little as in small...which to be honest is what he was. I think I read it as Augustulus in Gibbons and just used that form from then on.

In the western empire, Orestes put the emperor Nepos to flight and established his own son Augustulus on the throne"

"parte vero Hesperia Nepotem imperatorem Orestes fugatum Augustulum suum filium in imperium conlocavit"

"While Nepos was in the city, the Patrician Orestes was sent against him with the main force of the army. But because Nepos dared not undertake the business of resisting in such desperate conditions, he fled to Dalmatia in his ships. When Nepos had fled Italy and departed from the city, Orestes assumed the primacy and all the authority for himself and made his son Augustulus emperor at Ravenna"

Nepote apud urbem residente Orestes patricius cum robore exercitus contra eum mittitur. sed cum desperatae rei negotium resistendo sumere non auderet, ad Dalmatias navigiis fugit. cum Nepos fugiens Italiam ac urbem reliquisset, Orestes primatum omnemque sibi vindicans dignitatem Augustulum filium suum apud Ravennam positum imperatorem facit, ipse vero omnem curam externorum praesidiorum gerit

The youngster took the title "Augustus" as his name, but became commonly known as Augustulus, "the little Augustus" in the words of the Anonymous Valesianus, "Augustulus, who prior to ruling had been called Romulus by his parents, was made emperor by his father, the Patrician Orestes."

Some Greek writers even went so far as to corrupt his name sarcastically into "Momylos", or "little disgrace".

not that it matters...its nit picking.

http://www.roman-emperors.org/auggiero.htm

 

No, just trying not to change history. You know keeping it accurate
http://www.roman-empire.net/collapse/romulus.html

 

I suspect this is just a mocking play on words on the part of the Roman people.Since his given name Romulus and his nickname Augustulus both have the same ending,this would have been an amusing barb for Latin speakers of the time.
The only "slightly" similar modern equivalent I can come up with at the moment is calling Arnold Schwartzenegger "The Governator".

 

Thats it...it was a term to show lack of importance and lack of respect for the Young puppet. There is precious little written about him and that which was used the term for him extensively (ancient text...the term is not at all an anglicized version of his name)...I have just used it ever since...

I also call Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus by the name 'Caligula' without worrying about changing history although it was not his 'official' name, in fact gods help you if you called him this name to his face. Or I feel confident that I can call Gaius Julius Verus Maximinus by the name Maximinus Thrax without worrying about changing history. To each his own though.

 

Your right, Anglicization is the wrong term. Corruption would be a better word.