Excessively underweight Sev. Alexander denarius - thoughts?

[Finn235]

So I got this in a Roma large lot maybe six months ago and was planning to sell it - looks like a pretty average/lower condition denarius, right?

Only one problem 

I've seen denarii as light as 2.5g and limes or fourees a hair above 2g, but never under 1.5g! I assumed it was a fake that slipped through, but I'm not so sure. The in hand "feel" honestly is closest to a modern Japanese Yen- there's just zero heft to it. I don't think silver crystallization can account for this much loss of mass, nor does there seem to be any indication that it's plated or even a modern casting.

I'm stumped - any bright ideas?

[John Conduitt]

A quinarius?

[Finn235]

I think it's too big? Quinarii are IIRC more like 14-15mm, this one is closer to 19

[DonnaML]

My lightest denarius is this 19 mm. Macrinus specimen with Securitas on the reverse, at 1.58 g. I have no reason to believe that it's fake or plated. 

(RIC IV-2 24, RSC III 62.)

Edited March 17, 2023 by DonnaML

[The_Collector]

I purchased a Caracalla denarius that weighed 1.9 g and asked a similar question on the forum. Some members were kind enough to share with me their significantly underweight coins as well. They said that post the Antonines the weight quaility went down allowing for such underweight coins to pass inspection. Hope this helps!

Edited March 17, 2023 by The_Collector

[Tejas]

Very interesting. I think the coin is not distinguishable enough to have served as a different denomination. I think this shows that the weight standard was at times poorly controlled and that silver denari didn‘t really circulate by weight, but could also function as token money.

Edited March 17, 2023 by Tejas

[Kali]

I thought one of the common reasons is because some of the other metals used ,would have been leeched out, from their burials over the centuries? I've had Alexandrian Tets that should be 11+ grams and weight less then 7.xx grams and are perfectly real.

[Ocatarinetabellatchitchix]

Not my area of collecting, but maybe quinarius (RIC 255). Look at the only picture of a specimen I could find, and also the RIC plate picture. Same reverse die ? (and large flan too)

 

[JAZ Numismatics]

I agree that the OP coin is a reverse die match to the RIC plate coin. Also, an informal metrology (looking at all the quinarii of SA on acsearch) gives a range of weights from 0.96 to 1.58 grams. The size of the flan is irrelevant. I vote quinarius, which if so, is a tremendous find!

[Marsyas Mike]

I too have had concerns about the very low weights on some of Severus Alexander's denarii.  Along with Commodus, I'd say he has the most wide range of weights - this based on my small collection, so not an expert opinion.  That lovely Macrinus that @DonnaML owns might indicate that he could be added to the all-over-the-place weights as well - indeed, I see nothing wrong with it, just a bit light.  

To illustrate, here's one of my favorite Severus Alexanders - it looks and "feels" okay to me, not plated (it does have some coppery crud on the edge, but this appears to be an external adhesion, not a base core breakthrough), not a "limes" not modern - but very light.  I have three of these Annona types (RIC 133), with weights of 1.62 grams (this one); 2.36 grams and 2.74 grams:

Severus Alexander      Denarius (226 A.D.) (6th emission) Rome Mint IMP C M AVR SEV ALEXAND AVG, laureate, draped bust right / ANNONA AVG, Annona standing left, holding corn ears and cornucopia, modius at feet l. RIC IV 133; RSC Cohen 23; BMCRE 342-3. (1.62 grams / 18 x 16 mm) eBay Aug. 2017 Lot @ $7.14

[Roerbakmix]

Not my area of expertise, but this appears to be identical to this quinarius.

yours:

Edited March 17, 2023 by Roerbakmix

[curtislclay]

I agree with Finn235 that the size of the flan, not the weight, is the key factor: quinarii c. 14 mm, denarii c. 17 mm or larger.

Note the obvious size difference between RIC pl. IV, 5 and 13-14, which are quinarii, and all other coins on the same plate, which are denarii or aurei.

[Severus Alexander]

The quinarius @Roerbakmix posted happens to be in my collection. I posted about it here:

I agree with you and Curtis that yours is definitely not a quinarius, given the diameter. (Nor is it a die match to any of the coins shown above, I don’t think.) I think it’s a genuine denarius that started out at low weight and then was heavily leached. 

Edited March 18, 2023 by Severus Alexander

[Ricardo123]

1 hour ago, curtislclay said:

the key factor: quinarii c. 14 mm, denarii c. 17 mm or larger.

True but many many exceptions, see examples of 17mm and last one 19mm!

[Kali]

1 hour ago, Severus Alexander said:

The quinarius @Roerbakmix posted happens to be in my collection. I posted about it here:

I agree with you and Curtis that yours is definitely not a quinarius, given the diameter. (Nor is it a die match to any of the coins shown above, I don’t think.) I think it’s a genuine denarius that started out at low weight and then was heavily leeched. 

It's what I said in post #7, here. Leeched. And despite the new posts, I still think the same.

I've had Julia Mamaea and Maesa denarii in the 1.83g & 1.62g range.

[DLTcoins]

2 hours ago, Severus Alexander said:

The quinarius @Roerbakmix posted happens to be in my collection. I posted about it here:

I agree with you and Curtis that yours is definitely not a quinarius, given the diameter. (Nor is it a die match to any of the coins shown above, I don’t think.) I think it’s a genuine denarius that started out at low weight and then was heavily leeched. 

The surfaces have an odd appearance that to my eye suggests leaching/ crystallization/ embrittlement. Denarii of this reign are less than 50% silver, meaning there is plenty of copper to leach away, the result being a significant reduction in mass.

Edited March 17, 2023 by DLTcoins

[DonnaML]

4 hours ago, Roerbakmix said:

Not my area of expertise, but this appears to be identical to this quinarius.

yours:

I don't think they're identical in the sense of being die matches: for example, the collar and ribbon on the obverses are quite different, and the arms are different on the reverses. 

[Severus Alexander]

7 hours ago, Ricardo123 said:

True but many many exceptions, see examples of 17mm and last one 19mm!

Wow, that's a fantastic array of tiny 3rd century rarities @Ricardo123! Are those all yours?

You're probably right in that beaded border/die diameter is a better guide than flan diameter... the reverse of the Gordian must have a border diameter of 15mm or so, looks like, which puts it firmly in the quinarius category. The others are all late third century which IMO is a different kettle of fish.  First, mint consistency wasn't great, to say the least! 😁  Second, this late, any of those coins could in principle be a denarius rather than a quinarius... it's pretty difficult to tell in borderline cases.  I would bet the Carinus is a denarius, and especially the Gallienus since it's short on flan.  Here's my similar Gallienus which is 17.5mm, ID'd as a denarius by CNG (and Holmes) due to the implied beaded border diameter:

And here's my Carinus denarius which is 18mm, border diameter 17mm (2.09g):

And a pre-reform Diocletian from 384 with a flan diameter of 15.5mm and border diameter of 14 (a little less on the rev.). Weight is 1.83g. Definitely a quinarius:

Edited March 18, 2023 by Severus Alexander