Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Gavin Richardson, post: 2685627, member: 83956&quot;]Doug’s fourée pages are indeed quite good. In his discussion of RR fourées he writes, “During this period the purity of metal and weight was kept to a high standard so it is possible that mint expenses were offset by production of a percentage of these ‘special’ pieces.”&nbsp; This reminds me of a passage in David Hendin’s Guide to Biblical Coins, third edition. On pages 208-209, Hendin writes about an unusual coin--a VITELLIUS Judea Capta. It is a fourée, but he argues that Vitellius must’ve struck genuine versions of these coins because it would make no sense to strike a Vitellius coin of this type after Vespasian became emperor given Vitellius’s unpopularity.</p><p><br /></p><p>At any rate, what is at issue here is his theory on fourées: “I think it far more likely, however, that most fourée denarii, especially those with thick silver coatings from this and later periods were actually manufactured in the official mint. The king’s [Emperor’s?] treasurers expected a certain number of coins to be issued for each specify quantity of silver (or gold) given over to the mint, providing two possible explanations for the existence of these coins. First, that an unscrupulous mintmaster or senior worker stole silver and made up for the loss by issuing a certain number of these coins. Second, that because of the uncertainties of exact size and weight of ancient coins there were simply shortages that had to be made up for. It would have been quite simple to toss three or four fourée coins into every thousand that issued from the mint. This probably would not have been noticed for many years.”&nbsp; 209[/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