A Siliqua from Victor Magnus Maximus Perpetuus Triumphator Semper Augustus

[Severus Alexander]

1 hour ago, Magnus Maximus said:

@seth77

Possibly, however we also see the Siliqua being reduced in weight around this time as well. It should be noted that Trier stopped production of Siliqua in 395, when the mint was closed down.  So the Milan standard the author reference’s would become the de facto siliqua standard for the remainder of the denominations lifetime in the west.
 

My amateur impression (and I should say @seth77 has WAY more expertise here than I do) is that in the fourth and fifth centuries, the idea of a "denomination" in the modern sense wasn't really appropriate.  I think coins circulated depending largely on weight and silver content, and while there were "official" exchange rates among different metals/types/mints etc., in practice this was all very fluid and variable.  Kind of like foreign exchange at the airport. 😄 So that would explain the puzzle at the end of the page you pasted in, of how two different siliqua standards could circulate simultaneously. (Although the fluidity could also extend to different local exchange rates too, I shouldn't wonder.) 

All very, very complex... I don't know how they dealt with it in everyday commerce!  "OK, I'll accept 4 of your big ones, 1 of your medium ones, and 18 small ones."

Here's another relevant set of data, from Harl's book Coinage in the Roman Economy:

Again, this shows a highly fluid exchange rate.  Also, I suspect the "nummus" in this context doesn't really refer to a fixed "denomination" that was constant across time, but rather just the "standard coin" that was used at the time.  So the big change from 340 to 355 is because of the FEL TEMP coins (2 big ones: the large falling horseman and the smaller barbarian/hut, both with silver; plus the silverless Phoenix).  Which of these was the "nummus" now? 

You'll also notice the more stable rates of exchange achieved after 395.  Harl argues that this because the monetary system finally shifted back to token coinage from the intrinsic value experiment that Constantine et al. tried (and failed) to implement.  I expect everyone was just happy to deal with bags of little coins.  So much less complicated!  Even if annoying in its own way. 😄 

Edited July 9, 2022 by Severus Alexander

[Topcat7]

Wow. Some great information there.

I have a couple of coins of Magnus Maximus.

MAGNUS MAXIMUS RIC IX. Lyons 32

and . . .

Edited July 9, 2022 by Topcat7

[Severus Alexander]

Just a small point in passing... a couple times in the thread it's been said that the mint in Trier closed in 395 or that it stopped minting silver at that time.  But there are Trier siliquae issued by Constantine III (407-411) and Jovinus (411-413).  Both Sear and Vagi say the mint closed around 420, though I'm not sure what it produced at that late stage.  Any idea?

[Magnus Maximus]

@Severus Alexander

Looks like the mint was reopened after Constantine’s rebellion. Interesting, I was unaware of that. 

Here are my sources for my comments of the mint being closed in 394/5

https://www.livius.org/articles/place/augusta-treverorum-trier/

https://www.academia.edu/27941832/Supplying_a_Dying_Empire_The_Mint_of_Trier_in_the_Late_4th_Century_AD

[Severus Alexander]

1 hour ago, Magnus Maximus said:

@Severus Alexander

Looks like the mint was reopened after Constantine’s rebellion. Interesting, I was unaware of that. 

Here are my sources for my comments of the mint being closed in 394/5

https://www.livius.org/articles/place/augusta-treverorum-trier/

https://www.academia.edu/27941832/Supplying_a_Dying_Empire_The_Mint_of_Trier_in_the_Late_4th_Century_AD

Thanks!  That second paper looks especially interesting!

[Valentinian]

On 7/7/2022 at 12:39 PM, Severus Alexander said:

You've seen this before

What a wonderful and rare coin!  When I first looked at I thought "Arcadius" and then the legend said "MAXIMVS"!  Arcadius at Constantinople recognizes Maximus!  

Here is the same reverse type and mint for Arcadius:

The obverse legend is interesting for spelling out the title "Augustus" as "AVGVSIVS" with an "I", which is not a mistake on one die, but the way it is spelled on this issue. Presumably, that reflects a change in pronunciation. 

23 mm. 5.87 grams.
RIC IX Constantinople 83c2, Struck 383-388. RIC did not notice the correct spelling and neither did several other sources, all giving what was expected rather than what was actually there. 

For more about the AE of Valentinian and later, see my pages:
http://augustuscoins.com/ed/ricix/
 

[Severus Alexander]

2 hours ago, Valentinian said:

The obverse legend is interesting for spelling out the title "Augustus" as "AVGVSIVS" with an "I", which is not a mistake on one die, but the way it is spelled on this issue. Presumably, that reflects a change in pronunciation. 

Wow!  I'm embarrassed to say that I never noticed the "I" on my own example.  I guess I just assumed it was a malformed T?  (I'm very happy the flat strike was elsewhere!)

This got me wondering whether there are any examples with the ordinary spelling.  There aren't many with the fully spelled out title on acsearch, but I did find one with a T (from Roma):

Not sure this counts as a "clear" example, but that does look like a "T"... same officina as my "I" too.  So: is the "I" a repeated mistake (i.e. multiple dies) from non-Latin speakers, or a new pronunciation?  The plot thickens!  😄