one wonders the public reaction of the rollout of AE Antoninianii

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

It's certainly a shame that more ancient historians didn't cover the economic aspects of history.  One can only imagine the reaction of the Roman public when in 260, the silvered and not 'silver' Antoninianii rolled out.

I'd imagine that certain merchants would tariff the coins differently than the solid 'silver' examples.

How did the Sasanians manage to maintain a good silver coinage throughout?  Less pressures on their borders?

Would going back to the original Augustan standards have been a better solution?  Perhaps change the way the denarius is tariffed, like they did with the siliqua?

Early issues of Postumus were of better silver than of Gallienus' issues.  Were most done on fresh flans or overstruck on earlier Ants?

[AETHER]

Maybe someone who was around for the Coinage Act of 1965 can shed some light on how the public reacted, and maybe you can gage some of the concerns or worry or otherwise to maybe how the ancients felt? For me, owning precious metal seemed like a backbone of currency and its value. 

[TheTrachyEnjoyer]

56 minutes ago, AETHER said:

For me, owning precious metal seemed like a backbone of currency and its value. 

The previous few decades have shown otherwise 

 

[AETHER]

4 minutes ago, TheTrachyEnjoyer said:

The previous few decades have shown otherwise 

 

@TheTrachyEnjoyerbut thousands of years prior have showed it the case.

Edited December 29, 2022 by AETHER

[hotwheelsearl]

3 hours ago, AETHER said:

Maybe someone who was around for the Coinage Act of 1965 can shed some light on how the public reacted, and maybe you can gage some of the concerns or worry or otherwise to maybe how the ancients felt? For me, owning precious metal seemed like a backbone of currency and its value. 

my dad was a youth at the time, but his father and the rest of his family really didn't care; in addition, they weren't wealthy enough to save even spare change, so it was just another day in the life for them

[kevikens]

3 hours ago, AETHER said:

Maybe someone who was around for the Coinage Act of 1965 can shed some light on how the public reacted, and maybe you can gage some of the concerns or worry or otherwise to maybe how the ancients felt? For me, owning precious metal seemed like a backbone of currency and its value. 

I can tell you exactly how we reacted. Ho Hum. As long as vending machines  and toll booths accepted the new quarters few cared. I think the average Roman house wife, mutatis mutandis, felt the same way.

[AETHER]

@kevikens @hotwheelsearl well, there we go. the average roman public im sure felt very similar, maybe it was more of the wealthy that cared.  Im sure some people hoarded more pure metals then the debased because of that purpose. 

[kevikens]

Sure, a few of us did. I was still in college but already had been a collector for several years and I studied economics so, yeah, I saw what was coming. But the honest truth was that in 1965 I didn't have a whole lot of extra quarters to stash away. I was still in the mode of "I hope no bells and flashing light go off when this new quarter hits the bottom of that toll basket".

 

[Ancient Coin Hunter]

Some historians have covered the economic meltdown of the 260's. What I heard years ago was a lecture by my prof on how the Greek-speaking cities of the East (the wealthier part of the empire) were bankrupted. The local provincial coinage in bronze disappeared, and the demands of the Roman authorities on increased taxes payable in gold and silver (not debased billon antoniniani) meant that the provincial elites could no longer pay to fund the civic activities of their cities as they had done since the time of Pompey and Caesar. For example, they had funded gymnasia, temples, parks, baths, libraries, and ampitheatres. They also had been responsible to pay any differences in the taxes assessed and what was received from the people of the cities in sort of a handshake agreement with the Roman authorities. The response of this category of elite was to flee the cities to avoid the exactions of the tax collector, hiding out in country estates or even burying their gold and silver wealth, oftentimes never to return to recover it due to the upheavals of the barbarian and Persian invasions.

[DonnaML]

I was under 10 years old, but remember feeling disappointed that I could no longer take four quarters to the local bank and exchange them for an old silver dollar.

[John Conduitt]

Presumably, in 1965 the coins weren’t literally worth the metal value. In the UK we had silver coins long after the value of the metal became irrelevant. In the 260s I’m guessing this was a first departure from the silver value.

[sand]

I live in the US. I was too young to remember 1965. However, in the 1970s and 1980s, I remember occasionally finding a silver dime, silver quarter, or silver half dollar, among change. You could tell, because the edge of the coin was totally silver in color, and didn't have a band of copper. Whenever I found a silver coin in change, I kept it. I guess all coin collectors did so, and there were a lot of coin collectors back then. I imagine, that a lot of non-collectors also did the same. Perhaps that's what happened in the Roman Empire.

Edited December 30, 2022 by sand

[DLTcoins]

Debased antoniniani had been rolled out long before 260. When Caracalla (198-217) introduced the double-denarius, the fineness of the silver had already dropped to about 60%. Under Elagabalus (218-222) it fell to 42%. By the reign of Phillip I (244-248), the antoninianus was only about 34% silver. Between 250 and 270, the silver content dropped more rapidly, down to 2% or so. I don't think 260 was so much a watershed as it was the point at which it was no longer possible to give the coins the appearance of "good silver". Much of the real damage had already been done.

 

Edited December 30, 2022 by DLTcoins

[kevikens]

41 minutes ago, DLTcoins said:

Debased antoniniani had been rolled out long before 260. When Caracalla (198-217) introduced the double-denarius, the fineness of the silver had already dropped to about 60%. Under Elagabalus (218-222) it fell to 42%. By the reign of Phillip I (244-248), the antoninianus was only about 34% silver. Between 250 and 270, the silver content dropped more rapidly, down to 2% or so. I don't think 260 was so much a watershed as it was the point at which it was no longer possible to give the coins the appearance of "good silver". Much of the real damage had already been done.

 

I really don't think the average man-in-the-street noticed the decline in silver. From Nero's first debasement to Valerian was close to two hundred years. if I were not a numismatist what I would I know about the coinage of Andrew Jackson's presidency (1829-1837)? The Roman mints had become very adept with various techniques to make debased silver coins look pretty good. Take a look at the denarii of Severus Alexander or Maximinus. They are good looking coins, well executed and looking like a high alloy of mostly good silver. Even the double denarii of Philip or Decius look, if not exactly inspiring, not bad at all. Most Roman citizens neither knew or much cared about the coinage if it was accepted by merchants and the tax collector. How many of them could have played Archimedes and calculated the specific gravity of their coins? Romans did get nervous about the ratty coinage of Gallienus but they seemed happy enough with the new and improved antoninianus of Aurelian. I think we may have an exaggerated image of the impact on Roman consumers that the debasement of the coinage had on most them, at least as long as the gold coinage remained a store of value. As for 1965 few Americans cared whether their dollar was made of silver, cupro-nickel or paper as long as it covered a pack of smokes or topped off the gas tank.

[shanxi]

In Germany many people kept examples of the silver "5 Mark" pieces as a souvenir. These were not only made of silver but also heavier than the new copper nickel coins. (11.2 g • ⌀ 29 mm). Today the silver value is about twice of the face value.

I wonder how the relationship between silver value and face value was in Rome. Could you make a profit selling old, not yet debased, silver coins as silver?

Edited December 30, 2022 by shanxi

[Tejas]

21 hours ago, Nerosmyfavorite68 said:

One can only imagine the reaction of the Roman public when in 260, the silvered and not 'silver' Antoninianii rolled out.

 

The switch to copper came after several years of rapid debasement of the currency. Hence, people may not have taken too much notice of the final switch to copper. In general however, debasement (= inflation) is a (hidden) tax, which was implemented to pay for the many external and internal wars of that time. So we can be sure that most people didn't like it at all. 

 

 

 

 

[Magnus Maximus]

As others have said, the debasement of the Antoninianus was a slow process. I recall reading a paper which stated that by the 270’s coins minted before the 260’s were hoarded separately from the coins minted afterwards. The paper also noted that there may have been some exchange rates between earlier high quality coins and the later “washed” coins. 
 

[hotwheelsearl]

14 hours ago, shanxi said:

In Germany many people kept examples of the silver "5 Mark" pieces as a souvenir. These were not only made of silver but also heavier than the new copper nickel coins. (11.2 g • ⌀ 29 mm). Today the silver value is about twice of the face value.

I wonder how the relationship between silver value and face value was in Rome. Could you make a profit selling old, not yet debased, silver coins as silver?

well, considering you can sell old, not debased US coins as silver, but much more than face. A silver dime should sell for 10x+ face value as bullion.