ewomack

Taking advice from many people here, I recently switched from storing most of my coins in capsules to SAFLIP 2x2s, then organizing the flips in an Intercept box (which is supposed to help with exposure to the elements, but I'm not completely sure to what extend that it does). So far, this has worked fine. It definitely beats having a piles of capsules that were difficult to sort through or organize. Capsules ended up being overkill for most of my coins, honestly, so this will likely end up working out great.

In this hobby, buying is fun, but selling tends to be less so.

I've had some luck with selling, but 80% of the time, when I've wanted to sell, I end up selling for less than I paid.

Some years ago, I started buying Air-Tites for just about every coin that I purchased. Back then, I bought mostly modern US and Japanese coins. As the coins multiplied, so did the capsules. When I later began buying ancients, I quickly noticed that Air-Tites don't accommodate the high relief of some ancient coins, not to mention the irregular shapes of many ancient flans (to take an extreme example, I'm not sure if an Air-Tite exists that would hold my recent splayed Phocas sample). I also noticed that capsules take up a lot of space, as my coin box filled up rapidly. Following a recent thread here, I put all of my ancients into 2x2 SAFLIPs and really appreciated how little space they used up. Seeing that, I decided to put a lot of my other loose coins into SAFLIPs, both to save space and to make them easier to organize and flip through (I just had a pile of capsules dumped into a box before, which proved frustrating when trying to locate a particular piece). For this, I bought a 2x2 Interceptor box and nearly filled it with coins in SAFLIPS, including ancients and moderns of all sizes, metals and shapes. Picture included below.

So, my question (I know, finally) : should I have any concerns about storing ancients and moderns in the same box when the coins are all encased only in SAFLIPs? I have one or two potential "problem" coins that I did not put into the box and I inspected all copper and bronze coins for BD before including them.  Also, I did not pack the box tightly, so the coins do have some wiggle room that allows for flipping through them to some degree. Do any other concerns exist for this storage method? Should I include coins that appear to have stable green spots or omit them? Or am I being overly paranoid?

So far, I prefer this new method over hunting through piles of haphazard capsules, and I can also once again see the edges of the coins. I did save some Air-Tites for where they made sense, but overall my collection didn't warrant a capsule for every single coin. I just went overboard. But they definitely kept the coins well protected and isolated from each other. Now I wonder if I went too far in the opposite direction. I'm guessing not, but I'm curious about the opinions of others.

It is true, @Ursus! Ancient and even medieval coins don't require the budget of a small country to buy and enjoy. My first few ancients, all of them Roman, cost under $20 each. I appreciate you posting the prices above, as many people new to this pursuit may not realize that bargains really do exist. As with every genre of coins, the bulk of attention always goes to the priciest and rarest, but lesser price points provide a nice entry point into the experience of holding something 1,000 to 2,000 years old.

I couldn't choose just one, but I'm more partial to the Islamic coins with Arabic script and the Probus piece.

And yes, as @Parthicus said, the book by Richard Plant, "Arabic Coins and How To Read Them" gives a great overview of many coin legends. It helps if you already know a little Arabic (I studied it in college and have beginner's knowledge), but it does walk you through the basics as well.

I don't remember where I ordered mine, but it was from outside of the US. It arrived a few months after I ordered it in a US customs bag containing the original opened package. I don't know if it aroused suspicion, but, in any case, it did finally arrive in decent shape.

@Briac Yes! Thank you for sharing! These posts are extremely helpful for all of us inflicted with coin mania.

That said, as much as I love coins, and as much as I have a growing appreciation for ancient coins, these stories always reinforce my decision to never put real money into them. From reading and researching over the years, I have basic "fake detector" skills, but no guard seems to exist against the new "terminator" breed of fakes that have arrived on the scene in the last 10 - 20 years. I believe it was Jack C. Young who used to post cases of nearly perfect counterfeits, most fully certified, on CT. I could afford more expensive coins, but the fear and risk of paying $1,000 - $5,000 for a fantastic looking coin, only for it to turn up phony, keeps me from doing that. My most expensive ancient, so far, cost $275 and I agonized over spending even that amount. For those reasons and more, I'm very glad that people continue to share these stories and that people continue to look out for these situations. Regardless, circumstances like this one will keep me buying few, and relatively inexpensive, coins and keep my collection relatively small.

I see Verdi-care on sale again, and I've always thought I should have a bottle handy. Is it something that one can buy and have around for a while? Does it go bad over time? I plan on ordering some, but just curious.

I would like some around in case this guy below (Theophilus) begins to show any signs of BD - so far I've found no crumbling elements, but I'm wondering if it's just a matter of time. It looks like he may have had a case of it sometime in the past.

Theophilus (AD 829-842) Æ Follis; Constantinople mint; AD 830-842; Obv: ΘEOFIL bASIL; Half-length figure standing facing, holding labarum and globus cruciger; Rev: ΘEO / FILE AVG / OVSTE SV / hICAS in four lines; 27.66mm; 7.46 grams; Sear 1667

Those are fantastic! I would love to attend and see them in person, but I'm a bit of a ways from Germany. There is this ocean, see...

Do you seek out these commissions or do they seek you out? Or perhaps both? I worked in the museum field years ago, but it was probably not during the golden era of Legos, so I never saw any Lego commissions come through. I can see where they would be a draw. Again, fantastic!

This might be a rare attitude itself, but rarity has never really done much for me, at least compared with aesthetic appeal. I prefer coins that are enjoyable to look at, whether rare or not. But my tastes might not gel with others. I find this Phocas follis absolutely beautiful, but partially because it's also ugly.

I really found this coin beautiful when I first saw it, but again I may have bizarre standards.

As for rare and beautiful, I try not to spend too much money on coins, so I would probably avoid expensive rare and beautiful coins, overall. In short, I prefer beauty to rarity. A very worn rare coin doesn't really do much for me.

On 12/4/2022 at 9:24 PM, John Conduitt said:

I don't know if it would be that difficult to implement. The problems might be exaggerated, like the Millennium Bug. England cut several months off the year in 1751. Russia moved to the Gregorian calendar in 1918. GMT was switched to UTC. The UK decimalised in 1971 and (mostly) completed the switch to metric in 2000. Norway even changed which side of the road they drive on in 1967. The reason it won't happen is that unlike all these things, there's no desperate need to go to the considerable expense to do it. Maybe such a time will arrive for more mundane reasons than revolution, but it will involve saving money.

We're essentially in agreement, I'm just being more dramatic. Yes, if the powers that be sat down and decided to change the counting system, it could happen. There is obviously no incentive to do so and no urgency or really even any need. Barring that, the only other way it could happen is through the more dramatic scenario I mentioned. I was going way out there to make a point that we're going to keep using the system, because I don't actually see such an upheaval happening. I do know, and have known, people who are upset by what they call the "Christian counting system." Usually I use thae "violent upheaval" example to argue how stuck we are with it for the foreseeable future (I probably resorted to that here out of habit). In the end, I think it's fine. As I said before, those who want to use "BC/AD" can do so and those who want to use "BCE/CE" can do so. It does its job overall. The world has bigger problems to solve.

20 minutes ago, NathanB said:

Interesting comment, ewomack.  I agree with part of it, but I had a few points of disagreement, too:

• regarding the "year zero" terminology, I couldn't tell if you were referring to a year zero in between 1 BC/BCE and 1 AD/CE (there was no such year zero), or if you were referring to counting from a starting point, that being the hypothetical year of Jesus' birth (which we now take to be around 4 BC/BCE) rather than 1 AD).
• I agree that our modern calendar system of counting years is completely based on the traditional way of Christian counting of time, but I don't think the alternative to this is "violent social upheaval."  And if that really were true, it's incredibly sad.  That said, I think we are all too locked in, as one person above put it, to change.  I also think such change is unnecessary and undesirable--it would be a monumental undertaking with thousands of practical as well as technological complications.  I like the inclusiveness of the BCE/CE terminology, but I have no more objection to the fact that it originates in Christian calendrical reckoning than I do of the fact that Tuesday is named after a Norse deity or the fact that September is named as the seventh month of the year. 🙂

Hello, @NathanB

-I was using "year zero" just as a reference for when counting began, i.e., the once thought birth year of Jesus.

-My use of "violent social upheaval" was a (slight) exaggeration of what it might take to actually change the currently very entrenched counting system. Such a change would seem to necessitate some kind of drastic cultural realignment that possibly could arrive in a violent form, say in the aftermath of a revolution or a world war. It seems like so much of Western civilization would have to get uprooted and altered for something so embedded to change, so that such an enormous change would likely arrive via some sort of "violent social upheaval." Though I obviously have no idea how it would actually happen, I have trouble seeing such a change coming about by some sort of "rational consensus" where certain people in power sit down and agree to a new way to count years. Right now, it certainly doesn't seem practical for cultures that use that particular system to discuss a new system. So, if such an event were to happen any time soon, I can honestly only see it occurring through some kind of "takeover" in which the new victors would prove their dominance over the "old culture" by altering something so fundamental as the "BC/AD" system (I use the former Cambodian regime called "Khmer Rouge" as an example because they essentially did this as a symbol of "the rebirth of Cambodian history," and they accompanied this with excessive violence). I don't actually see that happening, of course, but that's why I chose the phrase that I did. And, honestly, I would rather use a less inclusive counting system than experience such a violent social upheaval, so I continue to use "BC/AD" and "BCE/CE" without complaint for at least that reason. Like it or not, we're very likely stuck with it for the foreseeable future. As for the analogy with Norse, Greek or Roman gods, I don't find that a particularly useful analogy. Christianity, unlike any ancient religion, remains a dominant world religion with far more impact on the lives of people currently living. The power of ancient religions today cannot begin to compare to the current power of Christianity and that's why some people find the counting system more invasive and unsettling than anything involving Norse gods or Mars or Jupiter. I'm not one of those people (though I would fully support a counting system not based on Christianity), but I do understand and sympathize with their arguments up to a point. In the end, we basically agree, we're stuck with the current system and I've decided to make peace and tolerate that inevitability.

What? It's over already? 😭 Y and Z were, for me, the toughest of all. Thank you @expat for the run!

X for XVII

Marcus Aurelius. AR Denarius. Struck 161/2 AD. M ANTONINVS AVG, bare head right / CONCORD AVG TR P XVII, COS III in exergue, Concordia seated left, holding patera, resting left elbow on statuette of Spes set on base. 18mm 3.4gm

X for mintmark XXI

Probus AE Antoninianus. Antioch, 281 AD. IMP C M AVR PROBVS AVG, radiate draped bust right / CLEMENTIA TEMP, Probus standing right, holding sceptre, receiving Victory from Jupiter standing left, holding sceptre. Officina letter in lower centre. Mintmark XXI. Ric 921, Bust type C

X for "X" or "year 10" ("Anno XIIII") and Y for Year 14

Justinian I Follis (540/1 - Year 14), Constantinople mint, Obv: DN IVSTINIANVS PP AVG, helmeted, cuirassed bust facing holding cross on globe and shield; cross to right. Rev: Large M, ANNO to left, cross above, XIIII (date) to right, A below, CON in exergue, Sear 163

X for "XXXX" or "40 nummi" and Y for Year ("Anno")

Phocas (602-610), Æ Follis (33mm, 11.79g), Cyzicus, Dated RY 4 ? (605/6); Obv: δN POCAS+PERPAVG, Crowned bust facing, wearing consular robes and holding mappa and cross, small cross to left; Rev: Large XXXX, ANNO above, II/II (date) to right, KYZA, Sear 665

X for X/X/X on the reverse of certain Byzantine Folles (some show better than others)

Leo V AD 813-820, Æ Follis (21.59mm, 5.48 grams) Constantinople Mint, Obv: LЄ-OҺ ЬASIL, crowned and draped bust facing, holding cross potent and akakia; Rev: Large M, [X/X/X] to left, cross above, N/N/N to right, A (officina) below, Sear 1629


Leo V AD 813-820, Æ Follis (23mm, 4.43 grams) Constantinopolis; LEON S CONST; facing busts of Leo (l.) and Constantine (r.); Large M between XXX and NNN; cross above and A below; Sear 1630

Michael II the Amorian (AD 820-829) with Theophilus Æ Follis; Constantinople mint; Obv: MIXAHL S ΘЄOFILOS, crowned facing busts of Michael (on left) and Theophilus (on right); cross above; Rev: Large M, X/X/X to left, cross above, N/N/N to right, Θ below; 29.12mm; 6.21 grams; Sear 1642

Y for Yen and Year 29

1896 Meiji year 29 (明治二十九年) - 1 Yen

Z for Zinc-coated Steel

Z for "God Zij Met Ons" ("God Be With Us")

After reading more of this discussion, I realized that somewhere along in the years, I stopped using "AD" and "CE" completely. I only use "BC" or "BCE" to designate the "before" or "negative" dates. None of my attributions (either my own or from dealers, so far) use "AD." If something dates 579, I just say "579." Likewise for 2022. I would never say "2022 AD" or "2022 CE," because there is simply no need to. So, one can eliminate the "AD" or "CE" from most contexts, if one wants to. As for the "BC" or "BCE," I guess that remains a personal preference. The more recent books of history that I've read, along with any recent scholarly work that I come across, tend to use "BCE" and "CE." I see them more and more, so perhaps they're becoming more of a convention. It would probably take some sort of social upheaval, a la Khymer Rouge, to alter the West's current "year 0" reference, but I don't doubt that it could happen someday, hopefully in a much more peaceful manner. In the meantime, eliminating "AD" and "CE" makes for a slightly more inclusive nomenclature. Yet the year numbering itself, even without those acronyms, remains inextricably tied to the counting from that specific event, so it will likely remain until larger forces intervene, if that ever happens. So even negative numbering can't escape the religiohistorical origins of the "zero year." "2022" itself, the very year that will soon end, is itself a product of that same system, with or without the attachments. Ultimately, I would choose a less inclusive system over a violent social upheaval. This remains one of those endlessly fascinating subjects that doesn't occur to me unless I think about it explicitly. It seems to rarely come up in everyday life.

The smallest coin that I have ever owned or even handled. The flakes of cereal I ate this morning were much larger than this tiny coin's diameter. A puff of wind would blow it off the desk. "Coin" even seems like a generous term to apply to it. "Flake" feels more appropriate. How did people keep track of these? Numerous examples, long lost from centuries ago, must still litter the English countryside.

James I HalfPenny, 2nd Coinage (1607 - 1609), mintmark Rose, Sp. 2663

As I said before with "V", these are getting harder..,

W for Wilhelmina

W for Wheat Cent

W for Walking Liberty Half

W for Adolph Weinman

3 hours ago, maridvnvm said:

@ewomack Your Probus is mis-attributed. It is not from Siscia but is from Antioch and should be RIC 921 Bust Type C.

Ok, thank you. That was the first ancient that I ever purchased and it did not come with any information, so I found a "close enough" attribution and forgot about it. I was new to the whole ancient coin field at the time and remained unsure. I've posted that attribution in numerous places over numerous years and you're the first to mention it. Thank you again! I'll change that in my records.

Wow... these are getting harder...

V for Victory

Nero AR Hemidrachm of Caesaria, Cappadocia. c54-63 AD. NERO CLAVD DIVI CLAVD F CAESAR AVG GERMANI, laureate head right / Victory seated right on globe, writing on shield, SGI 616, RPC 3645. RIC 617. Sydenham 82.

Probus AE Antoninianus. Siscia, 281 AD. IMP C M AVR PROBVS AVG, radiate draped bust right / CLEMENTIA TEMP, Probus standing right, holding sceptre, receiving Victory from Jupiter standing left, holding sceptre. Officina letter in lower centre. Mintmark XXI. Cohen 87, Ric 644.

V for Vienne

France ARCHBISHOPRIC OF VIENNE - ANONYMOUS AR Denier, 11th - 12th Centuries; Obv: .+. S. M. VIENNA. (Saint Maurice of Vienne), profile of Saint Maurice, facing left; Rev: MAXIMA. GALL (Grand Gaul)

V for Variety C

V forAntioch. Bohémond III. 1163-1201. AR Denier (19mm, 0.97 g, 2h). Class C, var. c. Struck circa 1163-1188. + BOAИVHDVS, helmeted and mailed head left; crescent before, star behind / + AИTI:OCHIA, cross pattée; crescent in second quarter. Metcalf, Crusades 378; CCS 67d. Good VF

V for Castle View

Italy, Republic of Genoa, 1139 - 1339 AR Gross ND; Obv: +.IA.NV.A. Castle view; Rev: CVNRADIREX, Maltese type cross with six diamonds around. Ref: Biaggi 895

V for Voided Long Cross

H4516 - ENGLAND, Henry III (1216-1272), Penny, 1.31g., Voided Long Cross Coinage, Class 3c, (1248-1250), Nicole - Canterbury, crowned facing bust of Henry, i.m. star, HENRICVS REX III, rev., voided long cross with trefoil of pellets in each angle,  NICOLE ON CANT, (N.988; S.1364), almost very fine.

V for Sehr schön-vorzüglich (what can I say? I'm desperate here)

Mittelalter Deutschland. Pfennig (1441). Leichte Prägeschwäche. Sehr schön-vorzüglich. Augsburg-Bistum u. Stadt (gemeinschaftlich).

V for Vatican

U for Uruguay

U for usually unseen edges of early large cents from the United States of America

U for United States of America, underused denomination

U for Estados Unidos Mexicanos

U for heavily undervalued

T for Clodius Turrinus and torch

P. Clodius Turrinus Rome mint, 42 BC; Laureate head of Apollo right; lyre to left / Diana Lucifera standing facing, head right, bow and quiver on her shoulder, holding lighted torch in each hand; M • F at left, P • CLODIVS at right 3.5 g, 19 mm Crawford 494/23; Syd 1117

T for Clementia Temp(orum)

Probus AE Antoninianus. Siscia, 281 AD. IMP C M AVR PROBVS AVG, radiate draped bust right / CLEMENTIA TEMP, Probus standing right, holding sceptre, receiving Victory from Jupiter standing left, holding sceptre. Officina letter in lower centre. Mintmark XXI. Cohen 87, Ric 644.

T for Thessalonika (TESΓ )

Julian II (360 - 363) AE1 (BI Maiorina); Thessalonika Mint; Obv: DN FL CL IVLIANUS PF AUG; Diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right; Rev: SECVRITAS REIPVB; Bull standing right, two stars above;*TESΓ in exergue; Ref: RIC 226; NGC Graded Ch. XF

T for Theophilus

Michael II the Amorian (AD 820-829) with Theophilus Æ Follis; Constantinople mint; Obv: MIXAHL S ΘЄOFILOS, crowned facing busts of Michael (on left) and Theophilus (on right); cross above; Rev: Large M, X/X/X to left, cross above, N/N/N to right, Θ below; 29.12mm; 6.21 grams; Sear 1642

Theophilus (AD 829-842) Æ Follis; Constantinople mint; AD 830-842; Obv: ΘEOFIL bASIL; Half-length figure standing facing, holding labarum and globus cruciger; Rev: ΘEO / FILE AVG / OVSTE SV / hICAS in four lines; 27.66mm; 7.46 grams; Sear 1667

T for Tournois (TVRONVS)

Philppe IV Silver Denier Tournois, 18mm, 1285 - 1310; Obv: + PhILIPPVS REX, Rev: + TVRONVS CIVIS

T for Thing (???)

Mittelalter Deutschland. Pfennig (1441). Leichte Prägeschwäche. Sehr schön-vorzüglich. Augsburg-Bistum u. Stadt (gemeinschaftlich).

T for Taisho (大正) - 1 Yen 1914 & 5 Rin 1919

T for Civil War Token, Toys, and Tackle

S for SECVRITAS REIPUB

Julian II (360 - 363) AE1 (BI Maiorina); Thessalonika Mint; Obv: DN FL CL IVLIANUS PF AUG; Diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right; Rev: SECVRITAS REIPVB; Bull standing right, two stars above;*TESΓ in exergue; Ref: RIC 226; NGC Graded Ch. XF

S for "S" (meaning "and," as in MIXAHL S ΘЄOFILOS)

Michael II the Amorian (AD 820-829) with Theophilus Æ Follis; Constantinople mint; Obv: MIXAHL S ΘЄOFILOS, crowned facing busts of Michael (on left) and Theophilus (on right); cross above; Rev: Large M, X/X/X to left, cross above, N/N/N to right, Θ below; 29.12mm; 6.21 grams; Sear 1642

S for Saint Maurice (S.M)

France ARCHBISHOPRIC OF VIENNE - ANONYMOUS AR Denier, 11th - 12th Centuries; Obv: .+. S. M. VIENNA. (Saint Maurice of Vienne), profile of Saint Maurice, facing left; Rev: MAXIMA. GALL (Grand Gaul)

S for Shilling

S for Sixpence(s)

S for United States of America and Shield

S for The Bason Spolasco "the real friend of the afflicted"

S for Seated Liberty Half Dime

S for Standing Liberty Quarter

S for Sen (銭) and Showa (昭和)

S for Steel Cent

S for Saudi Arabia

S for Susan B. Anthony Dollar with S mintmark from San Francisco

S for Silver Connecticut State Quarter with S mintmark from San Francisco

A Leopold I picked up years ago, a 1697 3 Kreuzer, also shows a protruding lower jaw. Some of the Hapsburgs, possibly including Leopold, apparently ate mostly in private because their jaws caused food to fall out of their mouths and liquid to dribble down their faces. Yet, and this is of course speculation, they may have also seen this physical inconvenience as a true sign of their royal lineage. If so, they may have not wanted to cover it up or conceal it.

A coin I just received this week, and created another thread for here, shows the Byzantine emperor Phocas. Some historical records describe Phocas's appearance as "grotesque" and some say he had a disfigurement. The coin, though not "realist," doesn't appear romanticized or overly altered in a way to make the emperor look more aesthetically pleasing. Though it remains hard to tell without some idea of what he actually looked like in person - a problem that arguably applies to many pre-photographic historical figures.

Phocas (602-610), Æ Follis (33mm, 11.79g), Cyzicus, Dated RY 4 ? (605/6); Obv: δN POCAS+PERPAVG, Crowned bust facing, wearing consular robes and holding mappa and cross, small cross to left; Rev: Large XXXX, ANNO above, II/II (date) to right, KYZA, Sear 665

Oliver Cromwell's "warts and all" claim, as well as Queen Elizabeth I's depictions, also relate to this discussion. In one of the biographies of Elizabeth I, it says that people who met the Queen in person were apparently warned by her staff that she did not resemble her public portraits and that flattering her beauty remained the best path to success. I don't have a great example of an Elizabeth I coin, but her minted portrait didn't seem to vary much as she aged. Elizabeth I might serve as a counter example to realism in royal portraiture. This contrasts sharply with the depiction of her royal namesake Elizabeth II, who aged quite visibly on the coins of the realm. Elizabeth I didn't have to contend with the constant presence of media.

The great jazz pianist Theolonious Monk once wrote a terrific song called "Ugly Beauty," and that exact phrase came to mind when I saw this Byzantine Phocas Æ follis. It's ugly, but, to me, it's also equally gorgeous. Historical records, quoted in Sear, say that Phocas had a "grotesque physical appearance." Others claim that he had a disfigurement. That might also mean that those who ultimately deposed him and dragged his decapitated body through the streets of Constantinople may have just had the advantage of the final word. Though he definitely looks sinister, ominous, and probably not GQ material, on this somewhat bloated and misshapen Follis. Some have also referred to him as the "Nero" or "Caligula" of Byzantium. He definitely made a fuss by deposing and executing the emperor Maurice and his family, and then conducting a reign of terror before Heraclius revolted and claimed the throne for a new dynasty. At least one commentator that I've heard thinks that Phocas might have received a bad historical rap, a la Richard III. Whichever interpretation one accepts, Phocas remains one of the most intriguing figures in Byzantine history. His coinage also runs a fascinating gamut of variations, complete with many unforgettable portraits.

Phocas (602-610), Æ Follis (33mm, 11.79g), Cyzicus, Dated RY 4 ? (605/6); Obv: δN POCAS+PERPAVG, Crowned bust facing,
wearing consular robes and holding mappa and cross, small cross to left; Rev: Large XXXX, ANNO above, II/II (date) to right, KYZA,
Sear 665

Please post your Phocas coins!

R for Rome and Republican

P. Clodius Turrinus Rome mint, 42 BC; Laureate head of Apollo right; lyre to left / Diana Lucifera standing facing, head right, bow and quiver on her shoulder, holding lighted torch in each hand; M • F at left, P • CLODIVS at right 3.5 g, 19 mm Crawford 494/23; Syd 1117

R for Radiate and standing right

GORDIAN III AR silver antoninianus. IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG, radiate, draped & cuirassed bust right. Reverse - P M TR P VI COS II PP, Gordian standing right with globe & spear. RSC 276. 22mm, 5.3g. 242-243 AD.

R for Rom' and ROmEOh

Leo VI (AD 886-912); Constantinople; Æ Follis; Obv: +LEOn bAS - ILEVS ROM' Bust facing wearing crown and chlamys, holding akakia in l. hand; Rev: Inscription in four lines: +LEOn / Eh ΘEO bA / SILEVS R / OmEOh; 7.67g.;  Berk 918, Sear 1729

R for Rex

R for Regina

R for Reverse(s)

I'm glad that this discussion has stayed civil (so far). On some other forums, I've seen this same topic result in firestorms, locked threads, suspensions, bans, etc. It's another one of those topics with an almost infinite variety of positions and opinions, some stronger than others.

This is ultimately a topic on which a "one size fits all" position doesn't exist. At least, I haven't seen one. Levels of sensitivity exist all over the board.

In one sense, it's just a dating system. It was chosen by the prevailing power structure within a certain political context at a certain time. Muslims, Buddhists, Aztecs, and even the Khymer Rouge chose different reference points within their own contexts. And BC/AD has stuck, at least in the west, for various historical and political reasons, which either matter to a person or don't. Their historicity can be interesting and fascinating. So, in one sense, they're arbitrary, and a person can just use them without even thinking about them.

But it's also often hard to see perspectives outside of one's own. When I've brought this topic up with other people, I try to ask "would you be offended if Buddhists took over the western world and then changed 'year 0' to the "Birth of Buddha" and we started using 'BB' and 'AB'?" Honestly, many people don't know what to think, but more than half of the people I've asked this question to say something like "that would be strange." And why would it be strange? Because BC and AD are arguably not arbitrary dates, they have an extra level of meaning to which either one identifies with or one doesn't. If they were just arbitrary, then "year zero" could just move around and we could use simple mathematics to recalculate relative dates. We could use the birth of George Washington as "year zero," but even many people living in North America wouldn't care for that. What about changing "year zero" to the birth date of Ronald Reagan? Again, opinions would vary greatly.

Which date a society or a civilization chooses as "year zero" is rarely arbitrary or meaningless. They have a political and social context. Whether people like it or not, political and social contexts change over time. Not everyone identifies with a dating system based on a specific religious figure. Some do, of course, but some don't. It's not as simple as "it's been around a long time" or "it's what people are used to." More is going on with such a choice.

Given that, I use BC/AD and BCE/ACE interchangeably. Sometimes I try to gauge the context and audience. Neither bothers me personally, but I also don't forget that "BC" and "AD" are fundamentally religious terms with religious meaning. They communicate much, much, much more than a simple number date. How someone reacts to that remains a personal choice. Some will find it exclusionary. Some won't. Some will care. Some won't. It's a very complicated issue.

I would have no problem using something more neutral. But the terms have become so embedded that such a debate would probably end in interminable mosh pits. In the meantime, I use them without complaint, but also without ignorance of what they mean and can mean to others. I completely understand why some people don't like using them. I also understand why some people prefer them.

2 hours ago, seth77 said:

Hi @ewomack, I have considered getting into US currency, I especially like the 1850+ notes and the early petty coinage like you just posted but with such a strong local market I fast understood there would be mighty expensive to pursue this interest in Europe.

I hear you. They're pretty pricey in the US as well. Even only somewhat decent VFs can go for premium prices, especially the Draped Bust types. All of the half cents posted I purchased within the last 4 - 5 years. Prices have just risen, so I'm glad that I bought the higher grade examples earlier on. I actually stopped buying them in the probably vain hope that prices might decrease. I'm still waiting.