What qualifies as an Ancient Coin here?

Just to satisfy my curiosity. I may have missed this information, but is there a published criterion that defines the parameters for this section of the Forum?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Our imagination... actually some members put it as before 1500. Let's see what others say...

 

Many would say one that is older than Doug.

(As I am older than he, I am not one of them.)

 

And you have TWO Dougs to choose from...

 

Since Doug minted the first coin that would be impossible

 

I have never seen guidelines for this forum. Collectors don't like to talk about criterion because there is likely to be disagreement. Most collectors believe a coin minted in Constantinople in 1453 AD is "ancient" but a coin minted in nearby Damascus in 697 AD is "medieval". Not only is that inflammatory but it forces collectors of Chinese material to jump into the discussion. Collectors of Chinese coins will show three similar coins, and one will be ancient, one medieval, and one modern.

 

O he didn't mint it..but he's got it...

 

that's exactly right!.. it's kinda like wadding into or out of water

 

That's a good question @jamesicus and one I have wondered about since joining the forum last April. It seems as if Byzantine coins are viewed as "ancients" as well as European, Crusader, and other issues from the Middle Ages. I have noticed there is no separate forum for Medievals on CoinTalk.

 

If you mail your coin to me I can tell you 2 things:

1- if your coin is ancient or not.

And 3- and that you won't be getting your coin back

 

I regard any European coin as medieval if it is dated after the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476, except for Byzantine, which continues with the ancient designation up until the fall of Trezibond in 1461 (Why did I end with Trezibond? It was the last of any states that claimed to be Byzantium, even after Constantinople had been recovered, and its coinage is traditionally grouped with Byzantine coinage). With regard to Asia, the setup is much simpler. I regard anything from the Zhou dynasty to the beginning of the unified Sui dynasty to be ancient. For people who don’t know Chinese history, that’s from 1046 BC to 589 AD, the end date being almost one hundred and ten years after my aforementioned European designation of medieval. Why the hundred year discrepancy? Because in both those specific years momentous territorial changes happened that ultimately changed the culture(s) that the events happened to affect permantly. Some would quickly approach a golden age (China) while some would have to rebuild and relearn (Europe). As a side note, I consider Crusader coins medieval. Also, Byzantium is the bridge between classical and medieval culture, and the heir to classical culture, so it seems nice to put it with the Romans.

 

Beginning of coinage (600-500 BC) to 476 AD (491 for Eastern Roman Empire) is "ancient" for me. Then "medieval" until 1453. I don't know enough about coinage from other areas like India or China to know when their ancient and medieval eras begin and end so I'm sticking to my interpretation based on what I know.

 

Not to mention that "Byzantium" were just run of the mill Romans. If coins are classified based on who minted them, then Byzantine coins would definitely be ancient, as they are just Roman coins from a later time period. But if coins are classified based on time period, then things can be more rigid in classification.

 

That’s basically what I meant.

 

Yeah! Just re-iterating, I guess. I do like your way of classification, as it makes the most sense to me.

 

This is a very tolerant group. There are several of us who post medieval coins and they are well received. Sometimes we even post later hammered stuff stuff like Elizabeth I or a bit later but not much. Once it gets into milled coinage it seems they definitely belong with modern.

 

I wrote for The Celator for three editors over ten years and the general consensus is that "ancient" coins are anything struck before the Fall of Constantinople in 1453.

Other people can have other opinions, but that is the most authoritative I know of.

Whether a coin is Medieval and whether Medieval coins are a subset of Ancients are two different discussions. Are Renaissance coins Medieval?

It is not so much what you feel is good for your collection, but what recognized authorities agree on.

 

For me "ancient" and ancient for the purposes of this board are different. With regards to the latter: I think that more-or-less any hammered coinage has more in common with ancient coins than with modern ones. I think the things that make a hammered coin from, say the late 1500s, interesting--historical importance, artistry, uniqueness, age--are the same things that appeal about ancient coins.

Or at least they do for me. I prefer to post in this forum, because of those common themes, even though my interest is mainly in renaissance coinage.

 

Thanks!

 

Theres definitely a gray area.