The “Argenteus” of Valens…What is it?

[John060167]

Hello all!

 

Here is a new pickup I have, an issue of emperor Valens-the so called “argenteus”.

 

Valens

AR argenteus, 19.5mm, 2.90g, 6h

Struck 364-367, Constantinople mint

RIC IX 11e.1

Obv: DN VALENS PF AVG, Pearl diademed, draped, and cuirassed bust of Valens facing left

Rev: VOT V in two lines within wreath, with large central jewels. CONSA in exergue

 

This example is a pretty great quality one, and a rare variety of a rare denomination-he is left facing! This coin, like many argentei, have a wreath reverse, which I love for its simplicity and beauty. Mostly blast white with a hint of color, came from CNG’s recent eAuction but also has CNG provenance going back to 2000!

 

This is an interesting denomination, as it was issued alongside the “reduced” siliquae of the era. Apparently the denomination didnt last long since there are only issues known of Valens, Valentinian, Gratian & Valentinian II from what I know so far. They were mostly struck in Constantinople, but you also find some examples from Nicomedia, Lugdunum & Rome. 

 

The “argenteus” is mysterious. I wonder, why were they issued and what were their intended value? The weight of a “argenteus” is similar to a pre-reform siliqua, but siliquae, both before and after the reform, were tariffed at 24:1, so how did this weird denomination fit into the system of the time?

 

The standard weight of an argenteus is ~ 3g, & the standard weight of a reduced siliqua is ~2.2g. We know the siliqua was tariffed 24:1, so 24 siliquae to a solidus. A standard argenteus is about 1.36x heavier, translating to a ratio of about 17.6 : 1. What is interesting is that this ratio is similar to the “light miliarense” ratio before Constantius II’s reforms, which was tariffed 18 : 1. Is it possible the argenteus was intended to be replacement for that? 

 

Does anyone know of any research on the denomination? Id like to hear your thoughts on this interesting denomination and please share any info you have on it (as well as related coins!)

 

Cheers!

[Kali]

Beautiful coin.

[Al Kowsky]

8 hours ago, John060167 said:

Hello all!

 

Here is a new pickup I have, an issue of emperor Valens-the so called “argenteus”.

 

Valens

AR argenteus, 19.5mm, 2.90g, 6h

Struck 364-367, Constantinople mint

RIC IX 11e.1

Obv: DN VALENS PF AVG, Pearl diademed, draped, and cuirassed bust of Valens facing left

Rev: VOT V in two lines within wreath, with large central jewels. CONSA in exergue

 

This example is a pretty great quality one, and a rare variety of a rare denomination-he is left facing! This coin, like many argentei, have a wreath reverse, which I love for its simplicity and beauty. Mostly blast white with a hint of color, came from CNG’s recent eAuction but also has CNG provenance going back to 2000!

 

This is an interesting denomination, as it was issued alongside the “reduced” siliquae of the era. Apparently the denomination didnt last long since there are only issues known of Valens, Valentinian, Gratian & Valentinian II from what I know so far. They were mostly struck in Constantinople, but you also find some examples from Nicomedia, Lugdunum & Rome. 

 

The “argenteus” is mysterious. I wonder, why were they issued and what were their intended value? The weight of a “argenteus” is similar to a pre-reform siliqua, but siliquae, both before and after the reform, were tariffed at 24:1, so how did this weird denomination fit into the system of the time?

 

The standard weight of an argenteus is ~ 3g, & the standard weight of a reduced siliqua is ~2.2g. We know the siliqua was tariffed 24:1, so 24 siliquae to a solidus. A standard argenteus is about 1.36x heavier, translating to a ratio of about 17.6 : 1. What is interesting is that this ratio is similar to the “light miliarense” ratio before Constantius II’s reforms, which was tariffed 18 : 1. Is it possible the argenteus was intended to be replacement for that? 

 

Does anyone know of any research on the denomination? Id like to hear your thoughts on this interesting denomination and please share any info you have on it (as well as related coins!)

 

Cheers!

John, Nice score 😊! I can't offer any info on your research search, but pictured below for comparison is a siliqua of Valens I scored several years ago. 

 

[Heliodromus]

9 hours ago, John060167 said:

The “argenteus” is mysterious. I wonder, why were they issued and what were their intended value? The weight of a “argenteus” is similar to a pre-reform siliqua, but siliquae, both before and after the reform, were tariffed at 24:1, so how did this weird denomination fit into the system of the time?

I've never really understood the silver denominations of this time period either, with so many co-existing denominations (light siliqua, siliqua, miliarense, heavy miliarense during Constantine's time). The siliqua and miliarense seem to have been plentiful and part of regular coinage, while the heavy miliarense at least seems to have been an unusual denomination (perhaps only issued for donatives?).

I'm not sure what the best sources are for monetary values. From my notes I have Diocletian's original argenteus tariffed at 1/24 of his 1/60lb aureus, and then a bit later when Constantine I began issuing regular silver coinage c.320 AD his renamed "siliqua", at same 1/96lb weight as the argenteus was then only worth 1/24 of his 1/72lb solidus, but then we also had the higher valued miliarense at 1/72lb (same weight as the solidus).

Maybe the siliqua and miliarense served different purposes, since it doesn't seem to make much sense in terms of a single transaction why it would be useful to have two coins of fairly similar value. Do we even know whether silver coinage at this time routinely traded at face value, or just by weight?

The silver coin weights had dropped a bit by Valens time, but whatever rationale supported multiple denominations during Constantine's time may well have been the same during this later period too.

 

[Al Kowsky]

12 hours ago, John060167 said:

Hello all!

 

Here is a new pickup I have, an issue of emperor Valens-the so called “argenteus”.

 

Valens

AR argenteus, 19.5mm, 2.90g, 6h

Struck 364-367, Constantinople mint

RIC IX 11e.1

Obv: DN VALENS PF AVG, Pearl diademed, draped, and cuirassed bust of Valens facing left

Rev: VOT V in two lines within wreath, with large central jewels. CONSA in exergue

 

This example is a pretty great quality one, and a rare variety of a rare denomination-he is left facing! This coin, like many argentei, have a wreath reverse, which I love for its simplicity and beauty. Mostly blast white with a hint of color, came from CNG’s recent eAuction but also has CNG provenance going back to 2000!

 

This is an interesting denomination, as it was issued alongside the “reduced” siliquae of the era. Apparently the denomination didnt last long since there are only issues known of Valens, Valentinian, Gratian & Valentinian II from what I know so far. They were mostly struck in Constantinople, but you also find some examples from Nicomedia, Lugdunum & Rome. 

 

The “argenteus” is mysterious. I wonder, why were they issued and what were their intended value? The weight of a “argenteus” is similar to a pre-reform siliqua, but siliquae, both before and after the reform, were tariffed at 24:1, so how did this weird denomination fit into the system of the time?

 

The standard weight of an argenteus is ~ 3g, & the standard weight of a reduced siliqua is ~2.2g. We know the siliqua was tariffed 24:1, so 24 siliquae to a solidus. A standard argenteus is about 1.36x heavier, translating to a ratio of about 17.6 : 1. What is interesting is that this ratio is similar to the “light miliarense” ratio before Constantius II’s reforms, which was tariffed 18 : 1. Is it possible the argenteus was intended to be replacement for that? 

 

Does anyone know of any research on the denomination? Id like to hear your thoughts on this interesting denomination and please share any info you have on it (as well as related coins!)

 

Cheers!

John, You may find this article by Mark Markowitz useful, The Paradox of Byzantine Silver.

https://www.academia.edu/20717908/The_Paradox_of_Byzantine_Silver

 

 

[Heliodromus]

This article sheds some light on the miliarense - not exactly what you were looking for re: argenteus/siliqua, but perhaps relevant in helping to explain why multiple denominations exist. It seems the Miliarense (the origins of which name seem unclear - 1000 of *something* before later becoming 1000 to the pound of gold) may have been intended purely as a donative "denomination", and at some point there had been separate offices responsible for minting of silver coinage in general (scrinium ab argento) vs Miliarense (scrinium a miliarensibus).

 

A NOTE ON THE MILIARENSE FROM CONSTANTINE TO HERACLIUS

Howard L. Adelson

Museum Notes (American Numismatic Society), Vol. 7 (1957), pp. 125-135 (11 pages)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43574187

 

If you don't already have one, you'll need to create a free JSTOR account to access the above link.

 

Edited May 4, 2023 by Heliodromus

[hotwheelsearl]

7 hours ago, Heliodromus said:

I've never really understood the silver denominations of this time period either, with so many co-existing denominations (light siliqua, siliqua, miliarense, heavy miliarense during Constantine's time). The siliqua and miliarense seem to have been plentiful and part of regular coinage, while the heavy miliarense at least seems to have been an unusual denomination (perhaps only issued for donatives?).

I'm not sure what the best sources are for monetary values. From my notes I have Diocletian's original argenteus tariffed at 1/24 of his 1/60lb aureus, and then a bit later when Constantine I began issuing regular silver coinage c.320 AD his renamed "siliqua", at same 1/96lb weight as the argenteus was then only worth 1/24 of his 1/72lb solidus, but then we also had the higher valued miliarense at 1/72lb (same weight as the solidus).

Maybe the siliqua and miliarense served different purposes, since it doesn't seem to make much sense in terms of a single transaction why it would be useful to have two coins of fairly similar value. Do we even know whether silver coinage at this time routinely traded at face value, or just by weight?

The silver coin weights had dropped a bit by Valens time, but whatever rationale supported multiple denominations during Constantine's time may well have been the same during this later period too.

 

“since it doesn't seem to make much sense in terms of a single transaction why it would be useful to have two coins of fairly similar value.”

sort of reminds me of the train wreck of the silver 20 cent piece that looked pretty much the same as the circulating 25 cent piece back in the day.

[Ancient Coin Hunter]

An interesting study might be the prevalence of silver to gold at the time. Gold seems to be much more common. I suppose this is because siliquae may have been melted down in vast quantities, both before and after the fall of the west. How many were actually melted down to strike Medieval deniers and pennies?

[seth77]

There are a few things that may help us understand these coins better:

1. They are likely very early, at the very least contemporary with the first siliquae issued for Valentinian and Valens after Valens was elevated in late March 364 very close to Constantinople; they also share the same reverse design with those siliquae.

2. The design points to a first issue, the head to left points to a special emission, what was special at that time?

3. Silver was already at that point mainly an attribute of the emperor's relationship with the military and with the foederati, not usually common in the regular markets and economic life. Siliquae were likely struck for direct imperial needs for army matters, rather as it had been the case before the crisis of the 3rd century with denarii being a common economic fixture struck continuously for both regular domestic markets and military needs. That means that they circulated less and were less a mean of economic flow and more a mean of storing wealth. I have read a few papers that indicated how scarce siliquae are in regular Roman urban contexts compared to their presence in borderland hoards and beyond the imperial limes, especially in 'Germanic' contexts. This is also the period when church silverware becomes rather common, possibly due to secondary use of silver coin.

So when we put these things together, an image starts to form, at least in my mind: these coins were struck in the spring of 364 after Valens had been elevated and likely before the two emperors left Constantinople towards Mediana to settle the partition of the empire. Since both the weight and the obverse indicate a special emission, I think it likely that they were issued to celebrate the elevation of Valens and the presence of both emperors in the capital (these coins are just from Constantinople).

But why were they made at a different weight standard? This is the pre-355 standard during Constantius II, an emperor that was a model for the brothers and after 370 for Gratian too. Such was the reverence that Constantius commended during the Valentinian dynasty that Gratian made it especially important for his own image the fact that he married Constantia, the posthumous daughter of Constantius II. I think that there is a possibility that these special coins were struck intentionally on that earlier standard to mark both the celebration of the empire having two Augusti (as it seems that the army requested) and the connection of this new regime to that of the Constantinian dynasty.

[John Conduitt]

1 hour ago, seth77 said:

I have read a few papers that indicated how scarce siliquae are in regular Roman urban contexts compared to their presence in borderland hoards and beyond the imperial limes, especially in 'Germanic' contexts.

2 hours ago, Ancient Coin Hunter said:

An interesting study might be the prevalence of silver to gold at the time. Gold seems to be much more common. I suppose this is because siliquae may have been melted down in vast quantities, both before and after the fall of the west. How many were actually melted down to strike Medieval deniers and pennies?

There was a lot of silver buried in Britain. Something like 80% of all hoards containing silver coins across the Roman Empire from 388-410 have been found in southeast England but none of it was struck there. I believe there's a theory it was used by the abandoned Romano-British locals to pay Saxon mercenaries, before the Saxon mercenaries took over (which might also by why they clipped them). Given they relentlessly copied Roman coins for their thrymsas and sceattas, I presume the Saxons also used the gold and silver.
 

On 5/4/2023 at 8:46 PM, hotwheelsearl said:

“since it doesn't seem to make much sense in terms of a single transaction why it would be useful to have two coins of fairly similar value.”
sort of reminds me of the train wreck of the silver 20 cent piece that looked pretty much the same as the circulating 25 cent piece back in the day.

It seems to be a common mistake. The double florin (36mm) was introduced in 1887, but discontinued in 1890 because it was frequently confused with the crown (39mm) and half-crown (32mm). It also looked exactly the same as the florin (30mm). It was named the ‘barmaid’s ruin’, since barmaids would have to make up the difference if they accidentally gave change for a crown in a dark pub.

Victoria Jubilee Coinage Double Florin, 1887

London. Silver, 36mm, 22.60g. Head 1; VICTORIA DEI GRATIA. Four crowned cruciform shields with sceptres in angles; FID DEF BRITT REG; Roman I in 1887 (S 3922).

[John060167]

On 5/4/2023 at 7:09 AM, Al Kowsky said:

John, Nice score 😊! I can't offer any info on your research search, but pictured below for comparison is a siliqua of Valens I scored several years ago. 

 

beautiful coin, from the east harptree hoard! i have a siliqua from the hoard, of julian ii from lugdunum …these siliquae tend to have a certain patina. oldest “provenanced” coin of my collection. i feel ive seen others youve had like this on cointalk as well.

 

cheers!

[John060167]

On 5/4/2023 at 8:42 AM, Heliodromus said:

I've never really understood the silver denominations of this time period either, with so many co-existing denominations (light siliqua, siliqua, miliarense, heavy miliarense during Constantine's time). The siliqua and miliarense seem to have been plentiful and part of regular coinage, while the heavy miliarense at least seems to have been an unusual denomination (perhaps only issued for donatives?).

I'm not sure what the best sources are for monetary values. From my notes I have Diocletian's original argenteus tariffed at 1/24 of his 1/60lb aureus, and then a bit later when Constantine I began issuing regular silver coinage c.320 AD his renamed "siliqua", at same 1/96lb weight as the argenteus was then only worth 1/24 of his 1/72lb solidus, but then we also had the higher valued miliarense at 1/72lb (same weight as the solidus).

Maybe the siliqua and miliarense served different purposes, since it doesn't seem to make much sense in terms of a single transaction why it would be useful to have two coins of fairly similar value. Do we even know whether silver coinage at this time routinely traded at face value, or just by weight?

The silver coin weights had dropped a bit by Valens time, but whatever rationale supported multiple denominations during Constantine's time may well have been the same during this later period too.

 

Yes, the denominations of this time are confusing! For example, I wonder the rationale of having the miliarensia (heavy and light, 14:1 & 18:1 ratio), when the siliqua is 24:1. This means a heavy miliarense = 1.714 siliquae & light miliarense =1.333 siliquae… a strange ratio in my opinion, especially the heavy miliarense…why not round it off and make it 12:1 and 16:1 respectively (so a heavy miliarense =2 siliquae, a light miliarense =1.5)?

 

I am not totally sure if the coins traded at face value although I would assume so. By the end of the 4th century, the weights of siliquae esp in the west were quite inconsistent, I have seen some as low as 1g for apparently unclipped pieces…the quality control was bad. I feel the only way people would’ve accepted such coins was if they were traded by face value!

 

It is possible the argenteus was an attempt to reintroduce some denomination (maybe a “reduced light miliarense?) along with the existing reduced siliqua and miliarense, but I really have no idea..only speculating. Fun to think about and look into though.

 

Cheers!

[John060167]

6 hours ago, seth77 said:

There are a few things that may help us understand these coins better:

1. They are likely very early, at the very least contemporary with the first siliquae issued for Valentinian and Valens after Valens was elevated in late March 364 very close to Constantinople; they also share the same reverse design with those siliquae.

2. The design points to a first issue, the head to left points to a special emission, what was special at that time?

3. Silver was already at that point mainly an attribute of the emperor's relationship with the military and with the foederati, not usually common in the regular markets and economic life. Siliquae were likely struck for direct imperial needs for army matters, rather as it had been the case before the crisis of the 3rd century with denarii being a common economic fixture struck continuously for both regular domestic markets and military needs. That means that they circulated less and were less a mean of economic flow and more a mean of storing wealth. I have read a few papers that indicated how scarce siliquae are in regular Roman urban contexts compared to their presence in borderland hoards and beyond the imperial limes, especially in 'Germanic' contexts. This is also the period when church silverware becomes rather common, possibly due to secondary use of silver coin.

So when we put these things together, an image starts to form, at least in my mind: these coins were struck in the spring of 364 after Valens had been elevated and likely before the two emperors left Constantinople towards Mediana to settle the partition of the empire. Since both the weight and the obverse indicate a special emission, I think it likely that they were issued to celebrate the elevation of Valens and the presence of both emperors in the capital (these coins are just from Constantinople).

But why were they made at a different weight standard? This is the pre-355 standard during Constantius II, an emperor that was a model for the brothers and after 370 for Gratian too. Such was the reverence that Constantius commended during the Valentinian dynasty that Gratian made it especially important for his own image the fact that he married Constantia, the posthumous daughter of Constantius II. I think that there is a possibility that these special coins were struck intentionally on that earlier standard to mark both the celebration of the empire having two Augusti (as it seems that the army requested) and the connection of this new regime to that of the Constantinian dynasty.

Great insight, thanks for sharing! That all makes a lot of sense,  they very well could be a special issue, although I do wonder how a heavy siliqua would fit into the post 355 system like you said…what face value would it have, or would it be traded based on weight? Also Ive seen issues for these by Gratian and Valentinian II interestingly, so the argenteus had a longer lifespan than I intially assumed (shared below)…maybe that could shed some light on these.

 

http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.9.aq.24

http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.9.lug.42

[Al Kowsky]

11 hours ago, John060167 said:

beautiful coin, from the east harptree hoard! i have a siliqua from the hoard, of julian ii from lugdunum …these siliquae tend to have a certain patina. oldest “provenanced” coin of my collection. i feel ive seen others youve had like this on cointalk as well.

 

cheers!

You have a good memory 😉! I sold the coin pictured below at CNG 483, lot 528, it had an estimate of $150 & sold for $354 including the buyer's premium.

[Valentinian]

I agree the silver denominations of the 4th C are difficult to understand. My attempt to describe the siliqua and other silver denominations is here:
http://augustuscoins.com/ed/siliqua/siliqua.html

Take a look. That page is like a long NF post.  

 

[seth77]

On 5/6/2023 at 6:45 AM, John060167 said:

I do wonder how a heavy siliqua would fit into the post 355 system like you said…what face value would it have, or would it be traded based on weight? Also Ive seen issues for these by Gratian and Valentinian II interestingly, so the argenteus had a longer lifespan than I intially assumed (shared below)…maybe that could shed some light on these.

 

http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.9.aq.24

http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.9.lug.42

 

1. Since the regular economy was based not on precious metal coinage but on billon and since the silver coinage is not continuous at this time, I think it is likely that any silver coin was not necessarily treated as legal tender but as merchandise to be bought and sold according to market rules. Since the time of Diocletian, the official quotations for precious metals was artificially kept low for the official coinage in terms of the purchasing value of the nummus, but that only meant that in the parallel market for precious metals whoever got paid his official geld in precious metal coinage by the official tariffs was in fact making a lot more money in fiat coinage than the official value of that coinage would suggest. So if you were a soldier you'd want to get your owed payment in silver and gold for one very good extra reason: in the real market silver and gold was worth way more than the nominal nummii value assigned to the coinage, so I don't think it's that much of a mystery why there are so many seemingly different denominations in silver.

2. Since the minting of silver coin in the 4th century relates a lot to the actual presence of the emperor and/or a stately need for coin, usually of a military color, it's to be expected that coins relate to specific events way more than before. For instance for a close-by analogy, Valens had his headquarters from ca. 370/1 to 377 in Antioch, just check where the immense vast majority of siliquae with VOT X MVLT XX were struck. We know these are post 369 and we know Valens was in Antioch a lot in the 370s and that means a lot of 'special purpose' coinage from Antioch at that time.

Edited May 9, 2023 by seth77