Thoughts on authenticity of Valerian I antoninianus coin?

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Looks fine to me.

 

Looks OK, just a little worn.

 

Later Valerian is about as poor billon as coins got before they started silvering them to make them look silver. The coin has little wear and no real damage but the poor metal is eroded from burial and cleaning. Many look as porous as this but there are some that suffered less over the centuries. Slightly better Valerian coins are not all that expensive so The question is whether this is pleasing to you and just how well this fits your desires. If you want to demonstrate how bad billon can get and still be gray in color, this is the coin. I might suggest getting one like this and one from a bit earlier and a bit later to demonstrate the transition.


My 'less silver' example is an error caused when two flans stuck together so it has no reverse but it shows the color. The next step would be a coin of Valerian's son Gallienus that showed silvering added but worn away to reveal enough core to make the point. If, however you just want one Valerian, I'd hold off and find one with better metal.

 

I found Valerian-era coins to be an acquired taste - all the variations in metal and strike quality, as Doug notes. As for the OP, it is about my least favorite appearance of these issues - low quality silver that has suffered from being buried and cleaning giving an "eroded" appearance (as Doug says).

However, once I got a few in hand, they really started appealing to me. Below are a few examples from my collection that are low grade, but to me still appealing. The bottom photo is of three from Valerian's daughter-in-law Salonina - these show the varying metal quality and, with the two AEs, the nice colors/patina these can acquire over the centuries:

 

I have another of these "billon" antoniniani which is kind of silvery, but kind of not. The powers that be probably were ordering the mints to debase the silver a little more each year to the point that by the time of Gallienus' later reign all we have are AE antoniniani. One wonders what the populace thought about these coins and possibly rampant inflation impacting the quality of life, that is if one could avoid the barbarian and Persian depredations throughout the empire.

 

In my limited experience, I've never seen a coherent pattern of debasement for Valerian (or Gallienus).

Unless I screwed up my attributions, here are two examples of RIC 287c from the Antioch or Samosata mint, the common RESTITVT ORIENTIS type. The one on the left is fairly decent silver - at least it looks that way, and weighs 4.12 grams. The one of the right is pretty much AE as far as appearance goes, and weighs 3.77 grams. Same type from same mint.

 

Couldn't resist posting this...poor old Valerian

 

So you are saying there was no specific pattern of debasement?

To my relatively untrained eye it does appear that the Eastern mints were occasionally using better silver than the Rome and Western mints. Also, we must remember that Postumus was striking coins of 17-18% silver when Rome itself
was striking the AE silver-washed types. Maybe it's part of the general chaos of the times.

 

I suspect the difference between those two coins can be attributed to things that happened after they left the mint. Different soil, different containers and different cleaning could cause this difference in appearance.

 

It's harder to find an extra preserved example of Valerian I coin compared to for example Gordian III. Three Valerian I's ants from my collection:

 

I'm no expert, so I am not making a definitive statement about patterns of debasement (or anything else) - but based on the coins in my (modest) collection, the Valerian/Gallienus era seemed to vary widely in metal quality, but not necessarily beginning/end of reign. This is just a collector's statement - a fairly inexperienced collector. I got my first Valerian in 2017, if that tells you anything!

As for Postumus, he seems as erratic as Gallienus - although it is usually said that his early coins were fairly good (compared to Gallienus) silver. My recent Rhine River God issue is supposed to be "early" and it looks AE to me:


This SALVS reverse looks pretty fine silver to me (fine for the time anyway):



But no doubt somebody has tested a bunch of these and have established patterns for dates/mints.

As Gogigli1977 notes, the metal quality of Gordian III (for instance) seems to be much more reliable. In the Trajan Decius/Trebonianus Gallus era things seem to get much more flaky - again, this is based on my small, recent collection, but some of my Antioch (or generic eastern issues) from these emperors appear to be very debased, whereas the Rome issues are usually better. But I don't have enough coins to claim a "pattern" - my sample is so small it isn't safe to draw conclusions.

Here is a Trebonianus Gallus I just posted elsewhere from Antioch - it appears to be quite debased.


I'm not sure I agree with Doug on the two Valerian ORIENTIS examples I showed - the silver/AE difference seems intrinsic to the coins, not based on things that happened afterwards. But Doug knows WAY MORE than I do about such things. The desert patina on the smaller one may be hiding a more silvery appearance (but I don't want to clean it).

More experienced members could shed more light on this. Just a suggestion - I've seen posts where the silver "wash" applied to Roman coins seems to cause confusion. I've never seen a Valerian/Gallienus so treated - this seems to come later, around Aurelian or thereabouts. But again, I could be wrong. That third example in Gogili1977's post almost looks "washed."

 

I can't recall a Valerian I am sure was silver washed as opposed to just surface enriched but there are Gallienus sole reign coins I believe are washed.


I would never say that the smaller of the Valerians in question has good/better silver under its current surface. Cleaning the coin would probably wreck it. All I said was that two coins that looked alike at the mint could leach out metals differently and tone differently according to what happened to them.

 

Gordians can look much better for a reasonable price. They had a lot more silver than Valerians. Both were mostly copper but there is a big difference when you get in the small percentages. Again, I'd wait for a better one if this is to be your only Gordian.

 

I like this one much better than the OP. Interesting reverse too - I believe that is Gordian sacrificing.

I'm a relentless bargain hunter - I've gotten some really respectable Gordians for around $20... not all the time, just now and again, on eBay.

 

Good quality coins of Valerian and Gallienus carry extremely steep premiums, but emperors like Gordian, Philip, Decius etc are perfectly affordable in nearly mint state. Most of the XF/AU Gordian III's I've ever sold went for under $40, and flashy Philip I's only go for over $50 if they are a more desirable reverse type.

My favorite Valerian, one of the few that show a seasoned politician and military commander in his mid to late 60's:


What's an Augustus gotta do to get a drink around here?