This was kinda unusual.Its silvered and you can see some copper peeking out, but its pretty beat up. In this condition you'd think it would show much more copper. I wonder if it may have been in a fire, or possible even re added in modern times. it looks a little better in hand but not much. Also no 100% its an epsilon between. Any opinions? Maximianus AE Antoninianus. Cyzicus mint, 293 AD. IMP C M A MAXIMIANVS AVG, radiate draped bust right / CONCORDIA MILITVM, Maximianus standing right holding sceptre, receiving Victory on globe from Jupiter standing left, holding long sceptre, [epsilon?] between, XXI dot in ex. Cohen 53. RIC 607, E
Guess I'll post this one of Constantine I had questions about too. I think its AQS but cant seem to find a match online.
Ancients were silvered at that time though. Heres a later one of Constantine that has most of the silver left. Yo can see green patine where its come off. edit: not that I'm saying it couldnt have been.
I had read somewhere years ago that during shortages of silver money troops were paid with real ones and locals were issued with plated ones.
Definitely a example where silvering can make a coin look worse then without, unless as stated it was silvered again much later. Hopefully more light can be shed on it from others.
Jlblonde - Where did you come up with that "medieval resilvering" scenario? Pretty imaginative! But completely fantasy, unfortunately. The emergency money scenario you are thinking of was Classical Athens. It is believed that they issued plated tetradrachms during the Peloponnesian War. These were plated with a THICK layer of silver and looked from the outside identical to regular issues. But remember, this was an exception, not a rule. Most plated coins are believed to be contemporary counterfeits. More on the plated tetradrachms: http://www.coin-newbies.com/articles/msns_owls.html Now, I don't think Randy's coin is silvered at all. Silvering is much lighter and more reflective. I suspect that on his coin, the natural lead or silver in the bronze leeched to the surface during the time it was in the ground.
Ha Ha. Yeah I know. I meant "ancient silvering" on that scenario? Not my fantasy though. An archeologist in the middle east came up with that one on a BBS posting back in the early '90s.
I agree with the entire post. The Athens plated coins have been widely reported, even though it is very flimsy as to its citation. Even if this were true, I think I have seen 100 fourree's being passed off as this emergency issue for every true one that is out there. Still, this story has stuck it seems. The Romans never plated their coins, but they would surface enrich low silver alloys to make them look more like silver. In time this silver film would wear off. I think Randy's coin is simply the leftover silver and/or lead in the alloy making it appear shiny, but agree it is no longer silvered. Surface enrichment in an alloy can occur naturally in the ground, and it doesn't have to be forced like the Romans did. Your coin Randy the day it was struck would have looked like a pure silver coin, but quickly the silver would have worn off in circulation. Regarding medieval resilvering, I have not heard of that, but I do know that ancient coins passed as currency in medieval times. Whenever coins were found, they would be reused. There are documented cases of denari and solidi being used that I know of, and copper I imagine would have as well. Chris
"The Romans never plated their coins, but they would surface enrich low silver alloys to make them look more like silver." This is one on which we will have to disagree. I do not believe that the Gallienus and later silver washed issues were done by surface enrichment. I do not claim to know the exact technique and will bet that there was more than one technique used in the century these coins span. It is a matter with much speculation. Until shown evidence, I say 'plated' is a better word than 'enriched'.
Doug - we disagree only on terminology. The point I was trying to make is that the "silvered" issues were created in a completely different method from the fourrée counterfeits.
Yes, I agree its probably terminology. The plating of fourrees was in a different manner than any Roman technology. If the method the Romans used on you would call plating, and I would call a form of surface enrichment, I think we are talking about the same process, and its just the word. Ardatirion is right, I agree Roman methods could be termed plating if you wish, but its not anything like fourree plated coins. The coins we are talking about are still very much open for debate as to how it was achieved, but all of the experts believe, (last I heard), that is was not the same process used by forgers. Very good point though, thank you.
