Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Gam3rBlake, post: 8108483, member: 115909&quot;]I&#039;m sure anyone who reads my posts has seen my Quadrigatus by now. It&#039;s my 2nd favorite coin in my collection.</p><p><br /></p><p>Ever since I got my Quadrigatus I have had an eye out for a nice example of it&#039;s little brother..</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>The &quot;Victoriatus&quot;:</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1410312[/ATTACH] </p><p>[ATTACH=full]1410318[/ATTACH]</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1410301[/ATTACH]</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1410607[/ATTACH]</p><p><b>Anonymous. Ca. 211-208 BC. AR victoriatus (17mm, 3.32 gm, 9h). NGC Choice MS 5/5 - 5/5, Fine Style.</b> Apulia, Q series. Laureate head of Jupiter right / Victory standing right, crowning trophy; Q between, ROMA in exergue. Crawford 102/1. Sydenham 115.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Per Wikipedia:</p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;The coin originally weighed about 3.4 grams (3 scruples), meaning that it was half the value of the quadrigatus, a coin weighing 6 scruples that was by this time no longer produced. The Victoriatus was made of a more debased silver</p><p>than the denarius, which was introduced at about the same time. Hoard evidence indicates that the coin circulated in southern Italy and later Gaul, indicating that the coin was intended as a replacement for the drachma or half-nomos</p><p>instead of as part of the normal Roman coin system. When first issued the Victoriatus had a value of about 3/4 of a denarius, however when the Quinarius was reintroduced in 101 BC with a similar type, it was valued at 1/2 a denarius.</p><p>This indicates that Victoriati that were still in circulation at this time were worn and considered to be worth only half a denarius. The reintroduced Quinarius was produced mainly for Cisalpine Gaul, where the Victoriatus</p><p>&nbsp;and imitations were popular. The reintroduced Quinarius may have continued to be called a Victoriatus, although there is no written evidence of this.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>I must have passed on at least 40-50 of them for various reasons. I got sidetracked by some denarii (looking at you Vespasian and Domitian)</p><p>but one of these was definitely on my high priority list.</p><p><br /></p><p>Well I recently managed to get one and figured I would share it with you guys <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />.</p><p><br /></p><p>It&#039;s also my first &quot;Fine Style&quot; coin!</p><p><br /></p><p>One thing I find interesting (and hilarious) is that the Roman Republic was WAY better at making circular coins.</p><p><br /></p><p>During the Roman Empire denarii were very rarely perfect circles. But this Victoriatus was made centuries earlier and is (almost) a perfect circle.</p><p><br /></p><p>Interestingly it just so happens that even though my coins aren&#039;t exactly their exact ideal weight my Victoriatus still weighs exactly 1/2 of what my Quadrigatus weighs xD.</p><p><br /></p><p>My Quadrigatus is 6.64 grams and my Victoriatus is 3.32 grams.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1410305[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1410306[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>Although the crack on the edge of the Victoriatus (6 o clock on the obverse) takes away some eye appeal I am glad that at least it didn&#039;t affect the design of the obverse or the reverse.</p><p><br /></p><p>Some of the Victoriatuses (Victoriati?) I&#039;ve seen have the head way down at the bottom or half the reverse at the edge and the other half missing.</p><p><br /></p><p>If anyone is curious it&#039;s because it&#039;s an &quot;as minted&quot; defect so that&#039;s how it still got the 5/5 surface grade.</p><p><br /></p><p>But at least my Quadrigatus has some battle scars too lol![/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