Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Romancollector, post: 4519830, member: 106319&quot;]Curious if anyone has found a satisfactory answer on this apparent dichotomy?[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p><p>I also think that the most likely explanation was that aureii were melted down to make solidi. The disparity between aureii to late Roman gold in auctions is reflected in my collection with a 2:5 ratio. With that being said, it is not always the case in auctions. CNG&#039;s 114, for example, seems to have had more aureii than solidi. We should also be careful to distinguish between Roman solidi and Byzantine solidi. In the auctions I have been monitoring, Roman solidi seem to be scarce compared to the abundance of Byzantine solidi.</p><p><br /></p><p>While I do love aureii, solidi can also provide impeccable portraits.</p><p><br /></p><p>Here&#039;s one of mine.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>Valentinian II (AD 375-392)</b></p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1119722[/ATTACH] </p><p>As [USER=73473]@Magnus Maximus[/USER] said, the same can be said for siliqua.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>Constantine I (AD 307-337)</b></p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b>[ATTACH=full]1119721[/ATTACH] </b>[/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