kevikens

23 minutes ago, expat said:

Good idea for a thread. I have only two from Alexandria

Diocletian AD 284-305. Potin Tetradrachm (19.5mm, 7.38 g.)
Egypt, Alexandria mint, dated RY 6 (AD 290/1).
Obv. A K G OYA ΔIOKΛHTIANOC CEB, laureate, cuirassed bust right
Rev. Eirene looking left, holding branch and scepter, SL (date) across field. No reverse legend.
Scarce variety with unusual date order,SL instead of LS

RPC Volume: VI №: 10032 (temporary)
Reign: Elagabalus Persons: Elagabalus (Augustus)
City: Alexandria  Region: Egypt Province: Egypt
Denomination: Tetradrachm Average weight: 12.63 g. Issue: L B = 2 (218/9)
Obverse: Α ΚΑΙϹΑΡ ΜΑ ΑΥΡ ΑΝΤωΝΙΝΟϹ ΕΥϹΕΒ; laureate head of Elagabalus, right
Reverse: L Β; Sarapis bust right, draped and wearing kalathos. 23mm, 11.64g.
Reference: D 4137, Ο 2757, Geissen 2313, E 2952 (2) Specimens: 27

I have seen a few of Elagabalus that have just enough silver in their alloy that have a silvery sheen to them. I think the tets of Diocletian were the very last ones issued.

Oh, I forgot, but for those interested you can find a good deal of reading material if you wish to investigate further. I recommend Harl's Coinage in the Roman Economy, Richard Duncan-Jones, Money and Government in the Roman Economy, and Butcher and Pointing's the Metallurgy of Roman Silver Coinage. All three are excellent and I use them all the time for just pleasurable reading as well as research.

I thought that today we might want to take a look at a denomination and a mint which was turned out by the Mint of Alexandria for some six hundred years, something noteworthy where other such denominations, as coins, have not lasted nearly as long. Consider that the US Dollar, as important in commerce as it is, is only a little over two hundred years old. The French Franc is a coin of the French Revolution. The Euro is only a few decades old. Yes, the English penny has  been minted in some form for well over a Millenium but the Alexandrine tetradrachm is the winner from the Ancient World, being continuously coined from ca. 300 BC to ca. 300 AD, something the more famous denarius cannot match.

The origins of the Alexandrine tetradrachm go back to the reign of Ptolemy I, kinsman and successor to the Egyptian portion of Alexander the Great's Empire. Almost from the very beginning the tetradrachms were minted at a weight slightly less than the more common weight of the tetradrachm that the Ancients were familiar with, the Attic standard, and for the next 300 years or so they kept it that way. They also kept pretty much the same design and  the same with the reigning monarch on the obverse with a standing eagle on the reverse. Keeping it that way has make it difficult for today's collectors of these. I myself have difficulty identifying these coins a Ptolemy the First up to Ptolemy the Umpteenth. The fabric and fineness of these tetras also remained the same for some time, with a fineness of silver of about 97-98 %, as good as they could refine the metal at that time. As time went on, by the middle of the Second Century BC, their fineness had declined to about 80 to 90% silver, though the weight remained at the usual 14 grams or so. By the mid First Century BC, thanks to trouble with Rome, their fineness plummeted to about 33% and remained that way into the reign of Cleopatra. As a Ptolemaic coin the Alexandrine tetradrachm was finished, but not for long as the conquering Romans resurrected the coin under Tiberius.

The Roman imperial government decided not to replace the Alexandrian tetradrachm, but to adapt it for the benefit of the Empire, mainly by continuing a closed system of coinage, one used exclusively within Egypt, one that would allow greater manipulation of the coins weight and fineness of silver for Rome's benefit. At first, under Tiberius and Claudius (there are no known tetras of Caligula) the new Roman version was similar to the last of the Ptolemaic coins, about 14 grams of a debased 32 % silver. However, under Nero the tetradrachm was debased further to about 16% though again the weight and somewhat dumpy fabric remained the same. For the next two centuries the debasement of the Alexandrian tetra was went hand in hand with that of the denarius, the practice seeming to be to keep the tetradrachm equal in value, at least for accounting purposes, with a rate of one tetradrachm to the denarius.. By the latter part of the Second Century the tetradrachm of Alexandria had pretty much lost its silvery appearance and a good deal of its weight, though, again, retaining much of the dumpy fabric. By the end of the Third Century AD the Alexandia tetradrachm, with its fine ness of silver approaching vanishing level and its weight falling to about 7 grams was finished off. With Diocletian's coinage reforms of about 300 AD the mint of Alexandria would join in and mint coins of the same weight, fineness and fabric of the rest of the Empire.

For us, collecting these coins, is not difficult. Alexandria, especially under Roman control, issued an avalanche of these coins and even the later Ptolemaic tetradrachms are quite reasonable in cost. Yes, their actual minting techniques produced some mighty unattractive coins but as the ones shown here illustrate some were quite well struck and quite appealing to the discriminating eye. The coins I have are displayed, mostly in chronological order, except for the last three, which show that their cellators could be quite skilled, even up to the end of the denomination.

The top three are Ptolemaic minted coins, Ptolemy II, Ptolemy VIII and the IX (maybe), well struck and good silver, each weighing a bit under 14 grams. The next three are early Roman period coins of Nero, Vespasian and Hadrian, all of about 16 % fine silver and about 13 grams. pretty good strikes as well. The last three clearly show coins  declining  in weight and fineness. Thy are of emperors Commodus, Trajan Decius, and Maximianus (or Galerius). The last three are a tetradrachm of Claudius, regnal year LB (42 AD) with Antonia, the emperor's mother on the reverse, a somewhat pricey Alexandria coin, Gallienus, only 4% silver but well struck and attractive and again one of Maximianus, regnal year Z, close to the end of the coinage but still well struck and attractive. I hope you enjoyed this post and I am looking forward to seeing examples of this long run issue

17 hours ago, Sebastian said:

Yeah. Problem is that in gospel is exactly the word „denari” which suggest a Roman denarius but the truth is that cappadocian drachm was much more popular in Judea than a Roman denarius. 

Yes, archaeology suggests that any kind of Roman denarii were rare, even unknown, to Judaea before the Jewish uprising. The authors of the Gospels writing in Koine Greek for a Gentile audience 40 or more years after Jesus of Nazareth lived may simply have assumed that the coin in use circa 30 AD in Judaea was the same silver coin they were familiar with at a later date. Looking closely at a drachm of Tiberius next to a denarius of that emperor clearly show the similarity of the two to each other in fabric, fineness, weight and design.

I think you get a good discussion going on whether either of the two drachms of Tiberius stand a better chance of having been the "Tribute Penny" of the Gospels that the usual denarius of Tiberius commonly cited as the one.

Thanks, Posthumus. I had no idea of this recent research.

Postumus, was there a date attached to the attribution as coming from Trier? I would have thought Trier to have been within the bailiwick of Postumus so I am guessing an early date to this coin. ??? or if not an early date, not coming from Trier? What do you think?

5 minutes ago, kevikens said:

A pensive portrait.

And I love that reverse, maybe the best I have ever seen onan Alexandrian tet.

21 hours ago, Orange Julius said:

I have a real soft spot for coins of this era too, Gallienus through… Probus. As for great portraits (from also a hit-and-miss mint), Alexandria has some great ones too.

A pensive portrait.

I am not a big fan of the coinage of the time of the Emperor Gallienus. I simply do not usually see them as attractive coins, with the notable exceptions of the coins of the site  posters here. Also, part of the reasoning for why I don't actively collect from this time period is that I like to see and handle coinage of the most famous of the Ancient rulers. There's nothing like an XF denarius of Augustus, or a toned Titus sestertius to set one salivating. However, there is also the matter of very little written by Ancient historians to fascinate us about their lives. I am sure the emperors of the mid Third Century AD thought they were living in interesting times and were living important lives, but it was their misfortune that they had no Livy to document their lives, no Sallust or Plutarch to regale us with their exploits, no Tacitus to fascinate us with their quirky behavior. It was not that they had bad press. They just had very little press of any kind. Also, to be honest, the celators of the mid-Third Century seem to have been less skilled, most of them any way, than those of the First Centuries BC and AD. Also, the metal they had to work with was a highly debased silver and much smaller bronze planchets did not offer the scope of the previous centuries. That said, I think there is enough evidence to think that some of the very best, the most talented (if not also the most unlucky) of the Roman emperors in Roman history may have been those of the mid-Third Century. The bottom had really fallen out of the tub when they ruled and they may have done excellent jobs of being emperors of those days, but, having no Livy's or Plutarchs, we have no way of knowing that. Judging by their coinage we can say that they may have been better emperors than those of the Pax Romana because they had a much tougher job with the Empire being beset by the Barbarians from all sides, with a few of their own usurpers frustrating all their efforts to throw the enemy away from the gates of Rome. For those reading this who might want to learn a bit more about this period, let me recommend a recent publication of a book titled, "The Reign of Emperor Gallienus, the Apogee of Roman Cavalry" by Ilkka Ayvanne. As for the coinage of the time period, I have here four of my coins from this period. From the upper right a double denarius of Valerian, the father, and for a while, the co-emperor of Gallienus. It is of decent fabric and design and the reverse is a most interesting re-do of a denarius of Augustus showing Lucius and Gaius. Why? I have no idea. It is Sear 2891 and weighs 3.5 grams The Alexandrine tetra next to Valian is of Gallienus, himself, and is a good portrait and strike, as far as these coins go. It weighs 11.72 grams and is supposed be of about 4% silver. It was struck in the year 5 of his reign, so about 258 AD. He reigned for some 15 years. Not bad when a number of emperors did not last 15 months. The third coin is a double denarius of Lady Salonina, his wife, weighing 4.1 grams showing that some celators could still cut it (sorry, couldn't resist). With Ceres on the reverse it is RIC 590 and was probably minted about 260 AD. Last is another double denarius of Emperor Probus who might have proved to be among the very best emperors, if he had not insisted that his soldiers do repair and reclamation work while awaiting the Barbarian hordes. From this time on, for several decades, the coinage seems better struck and of a better fabric. This coin comes in at 4.2 grams and seems to have a better coating of silver than the coins of a few decades earlier. It shows the "Adventus Probus", the arrival of the emperor about 280 AD. It is Sear 3340 or variant close to that. I hope readers enjoyed the write up and have some more coins of this period to show what the coinage looked like when the bottom almost saw the bottom fall out.

Possibly a silver drachm of Amyntas, King of the Galatians.

1 hour ago, ambr0zie said:

Something like this  (I said like, not 100% match as the control marks look different)

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=433861

But in my opinion this coin is not genuine as the style is strange. 

It may wind up back in the black cabinet but what you provided me has given me the task of exploring this more as I was not certain that any silver coins, drachmas of this style were, indeed struck in silver or that something similar had been struck.  Should that rabbit hole I will have you to thank. 

I purchased this coin some years back from a junk box at a coin shop. It looked vaguely familiar, perhaps a Roman denarius but I never could properly attribute it so I put it into my "Black Cabinet" of possible fakes. More recently, with a good glass I detected what looked like Greek letters on the reverse. From about one o'clock on the obverse appears to be the common BASILEOS for king and at 11 o'clock appear the last two letters XXXXOU. On the obverse, obviously Athena in a Corinthian style helmet, I can detect no writing but there does seem to be some kind of small image (an owl?) behind her head. The reverse image may be some form of Nike, but is not the same as the Nike found on the typical gold stater of the period. The coin seems to be made of silver, with some crystallization here and there. I have done nothing to its surfaces. That's how it came out of the box. The diameter is about 18.5 mm and the weight is 3.8 grams. Any help on its attribution would be welcome and perhaps it does need to go back to the black cabinet. Thanks for taking a look.

Many of these are found in a well circulated state. Given that they were introduced into circulation in 1837, the year that the bottom dropped out of the markets, paper currency and produced a first class panic, they served well a public looking for anything in coinage. They saw service into the US Civil War when even the bronze cents started to be hoarded. With that fearsome eagle trampling the serpent I wonder if they circulated in Mexico as well?

I have found that neither the Roman mints or consumers were all that concerned about the weight of their aes coinage. These are not really bullion coins that were going to be melted down. As long as they were convertible to bullion, accepted in the market place and by the tax collector, they were just fine even if a bit on the light side. This one seems OK to me, warts and all.

16 hours ago, Sulla80 said:

Ancient coins don't all come in MS-70 (perfect mint state, with no flaws, scratches, or wear visible under 5x magnification).

This coin looks like all of its 2100+ years - some interesting coloring, a little de-lamination on the left cheek of Mars, some light roughness on the reverse, the metal overall looks brittle and crystalized, even a little light encrustation on the obverse.  All told, it is also a coin that I found attractive with a high relief reverse and expressive portrait on the obverse.

Roman Republic, Q. Minucius Thermus M. f., AR Denarius, Rome, 103 BC

Obv: Helmeted head of Mars to left

Rev: Two warriors in combat, one on left protecting a fallen comrade; Q•THERM•MF (ligate) in exergue

Ref: Crawford 319/1; BMCRR Italy 653-6; RSC Minucia 19.

The moneyer's ancestor of the same name, Quintus Minucius Q. f. L. n. Thermus, was elected consul in 193 and assigned Liguria as his province.  He was victorious over the Ligurians and ramained in Liguria for 191–190.

C. Cavedoni in "Di alcune medaglie di famiglie romane," Bullettino dell'Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica, in 1845, on pages 184-185 writes about this coin:

"Of the two fighters, on each side of the Roman citizen on the ground, the Roman seems to me to be the one on the left. His opponent holds a clipeus (shield) very similar to the Thracian pelta (shield) (See: Xenoph. Anab. VII.4, 13.Pollux, I, 134: Varrò, Lingua Latina VII.43 : Eurip. Alcest. v. 498. cf. Trésor de Glypt. B. rèi. du Parthenon, PI. I, VI).

We learn from Livy that Q. Mìnucio Termo, who had defeated the Ligurians and triumphed over Hispania, was sent as a legate to Asia, and on his return was mortally wounded in a conflict with the Thracian robbers, who attacked the army of Gnaeus Manlius in year 566 of Rome (Livius XXXVIII, 44, 46, 49)

"In eo proelio cum et impedimentorum et calonum pars et milites aliquot, cum passim toto prope saltu pugnaretur, cecidissent, plurimum Q. Minuci Thermi morte damni est acceptum, fortis ac strenui viri."

"In that battle, since it was fought at various points virtually all along the defile, some of the baggage and some camp followers were lost as well as a number of fighting men, but the most serious setback was the death of Quintus Minucius Thermus, a man of great courage and energy."

However, he did not die on the spot, since Gn. Manlius in his defense said that it was not in his power to prevent neither the wound, nor the death of the brave and energetic man, Q. Minucius. Fortunately the match of the name and the Thracian armor of the adversary leads me to find that this coin represents the saved citizen, otherwise I could have searched in a vain through historical memories of the Minncii Termi. It can therefore be assumed that the brave Q. Minucius Termus suffered a mortal wound while he saved the life of the citizen who fell to the ground at the feet of the two combatants. If not long after, he died from the wound he received, this does not detract from the glory of the heroic deed; just as Scipio Africanus in order to save his father in the battle of Trebbia, sustained a serious wound, and would not have been less noble and glorious had the wound subsequently resulted in his death."

"Attic red-figure drinking cup depicting a warrior (“peltast”) wearing a Thracian cloak (decorated with stripes and geometric patterns), a cap with flaps, and boots while holding both a crescent shield (peltē) decorated with large eyes and a spear (ca. 470-460 BCE; now in the Sackler Museum, Harvard, inv. 1959.219):"

Thanks to @DonnaML for highlighting an important omission in this post: I am adding a couple of notes here for those who don't read the whole thread.

 Paully's Realencyclopädie for the entry RE: Minucius 65  is hesitant on the association of the reverse : "Minucius's death in the fight against the Thracians was glorified a hundred years later by his descendant of the same name No. 66 on his denarii, if the barbarian depicted here, from whom a Roman warrior is protecting his fallen companion, is really characterized by the horn decorations on his helmet as a Thracian."

Crawford is more dismissive of the precise alignment to this fight: "The types doubtless allude to an act of martial heroism of one the moneyer's ancestors - it is idle (pace C Cavedoni Bulletino 1843, 184) to speculate which."  Crawford could be a more specific about his objection to Cavedoni's argument.

Post your coins that show their age - and are more attractive because they do (or anything else you find interesting or entertaining).

And think of the thousands of Ancients who handled, pocketed and spent that coin and all the goods and service it provided them with.

On 4/14/2024 at 11:23 PM, CPK said:

Denarii of Severus Alexander are not hard to find in excellent condition, but even so this one struck me as something special.

- crisply and evenly struck on a wide flan of good quality metal, allowing full dotted borders on both sides

- very heavy, too, at nearly 4 (!) grams in weight

- a very fine, high-relief portrait

- the reverse is sharp as well (look at the detail in Sol's face!) with lustrous fields

- and to top it off, the coin is beautifully toned, highlighting the design and relief.

It may not command much attention among the EF aureii in a high-profile auction, but it's about as good as you'll get IMO! 😉 

 

Thanks for looking, and feel free to post your own quality favorites, coins of Severus Alexander, or anything else!

SEVERUS ALEXANDER, AD 222-235
AR Denarius (20.28mm, 3.95g, 6h)
Struck AD 233. Rome mint
Obverse: IMP ALEXANDER PIVS AVG, laureate and draped bust of Severus Alexander right
Reverse: P M TR P XII COS III P P, Sol, radiate with cloak over left shoulder, advancing left, holding whip in left hand and raising right hand
References: RIC IV 120, RCV 7915
A superb specimen, with lovely old cabinet toning, sharply struck on a broad and heavy flan.

If the Roman mints ever produced "proof" coins yours is one of them.

15 hours ago, DonnaML said:

The regulations (and the statute itself, linked from the regulations) also state that the statute's prohibitions apply to anyone who sells such a coin in commerce without the proper markings.  So it's not only illegal for foreign dealers like Bertolami to send such unmarked coins into the USA (and for the buyer as well, as the "importer," should the buyer have the necessary knowledge of falsity), but also for US dealers who sometimes offer unmarked "reproductions" to sell them within the USA. I wonder if the law has actually ever been enforced. No specific penalties are prescribed, but the statute does give any interested party a private right of action to sue anyone who violates the law for injunctive relief and damages, plus attorneys' fees. 

Is it unlawful for a collector to have such unmarked copies/fakes in one's collection in the US? If so, does that mean keeping a Black Cabinet of probable fakes is unlawful?

I wish the article had mentioned more about the coin found, but my guess is that any small denomination coin would have sufficed. 

The Greeks had easy access to "obols" but not so likely to be found  among the Romans. They must have had their own equivalent and I world guess a copper As would do. Archaeologist ought to have been able to discover some of these coins in grave sites, perhaps some in situ among skulls. Anyone know if certain coins were found in such excavations?

Unless you live in Greece I don't think you will have much success in actually acquiring antiquities like this. There are other areas where antiquities can be gotten without running afoul of paper work regulations, licensing and shipping problems. 

Looking at the Seaby publication I see that it does list a half penny for Edward II (Seaby 1472,  Coins of England and the UK ), Weighing the coin should settle the matter. The silver penny of his reign should be close to 22 grains) and a half penny of about half that weight. There are about 15.4 gains to a gram.

AussieCollector, is "Barbarians" a movie or TV series?

Superbus, et, fur meine Freunden aus Germania, wunderbar. Excellent and realistic production with respect to all the impedimenta of soldiering circa 65 AD, though i have trouble following the Classical pronunciation of the Latin. Still for those interested in what it probably sounded like, a trip back in time. And it seems Agrippa is smiling, too.

I am a bit confused on this story. Were the troops paid in Roman denarii or in drachmas and if the latter, were they produced at a provincial mint, a travelling mint or were they minted in Rome itself? If the latter, would these drachmas pass current in trade in the West or would they have to be exchanged forf denarii?