FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board

Numismatic and History Discussion Forums => Roman Coins Discussion Forum => Topic started by: Follibus Fanaticus on March 23, 2005, 08:17:52 pm

Title: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on March 23, 2005, 08:17:52 pm
I collect follises [English], sometimes written folles [Latin], by emperor by mint from c. 294 to 313.  The period embraces the first appearance of the follis to the closing of the Ostia mint, as covered by "The Roman Imperial Coinage" [RIC], Volume 6.  The first follises are roughly the size of a U.S. large cent.  By 313, the Ostia follises are about the size of a nickel, or U.S. five cent piece, and they get even smaller after that.

I mostly ignore follises after 313, those covered by RIC, Volume 7.

Diocletian follises appear from 15 mints.  The other three members of the First Tetrarchy appear from the same 15 plus Ostia, from which they only are issued as deified emperors.  For the Second Tetrarchy (305-306), 15 mints issue for Severus II, 16 for the other three.  For the Third Tetrarchy (306-307) Severus II has no Ostia issues, the other three do.  And so on, through various usurpers to the Second Revised Tetrarchy (310-313).

As my collection grew, it branched.  It now includes:

1. One follis from each mint for each emperor or usurper from 294 to 313.

2. All reverses that interest me.

3. All fractions of the follis, including the ones in RIC, Volume Seven.

I propose a dialogue that would include:

1. All things Roman Imperial follis, as covered in RIC, Volumes 6 & 7.  I know some authors call the coin a nummis, but let’s keep to the word follis, because most books use the word.  

2. Sources of numismatic knowledge in scholarly periodicals and journals, such as "The Mystery of the Missing Mint Mark," in the March 2005 "Celator."

3. Where and how to put hands on translations of primary historical sources of the period.  I still have not secured a copy of  "De mortibus persecutorum" by Lactantius, the primary work on the period by someone who lived through it.  Incidentally, anyone looking for a translation of Diocletians’ Edict of Maximum Prices can find it on pp. 224-227 of Stephen William’s "Diocletian and the Roman Recovery," Methuen, New York, 1985, 257 pages.  Some coin collectors believe that the Moneta reverses of follises of the period commemorate this edict.

My web name is FOLLIBUS FANATICUS, Ciceronian Latin for enthusiastic for follises.  Now let’s hear about follises, questions, observations, opinions and coin war stories.
Title: Re:A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Pep on March 24, 2005, 12:42:06 am
Here is the text of Lactantius's "Of the Manner in which the Persecutors Died" (Addressed to Donatus):

http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/texts/lactant/lactperf.html

I found it through the great resource (and a winner of our Forvm Classical Studies Award *shameless plug :P*):

Internet Ancient History Sourcebook
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/asbook.html

It has alot of great primary texts onsite and links to other sites with such texts.

However, I couldn't find an English translation of the "Edict on Prices" there or anywhere else on the Internet.  Strange, one would think such an important document would be posted somewhere.

You have proposed an interesting dialogue Follibus, I look forward to seeing its evolution.

Kevin  :)
Title: Re:A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Robert_Brenchley on March 24, 2005, 01:48:38 am
Is there a meaningful definition of the term? I think it's pretty clear when the follis first appeared, in Diocletian's reform, but then it shrinks and fades away in a rather vague manner. How far can we actually determine the moment of it's disappearance?
Title: Re:A Forum for the Follis
Post by: PeterD on March 24, 2005, 05:52:44 am
For Diocletian's Edicts see:
http://www.tulane.edu/~august/handouts/601ccdoc.htm
Title: Re:A Forum for the Follis
Post by: mauseus on March 24, 2005, 07:12:33 am
Hi,

The text "preamble" to the prices is on the above link but not the prices themselves.

Tables of the actual prices for goods and services (or at least a partial list) can be found in a book, the title of which is something like Roman History: A sourcebook (1967, if my memory serves me right).

Regards,

Mauseus
Title: Re:A Forum for the Follis
Post by: PeterD on March 24, 2005, 07:47:40 am
Actually the prices are listed in a book I have, called "Roman Civilization, Vol II, Selected Readings, The Empire" edited by Naphali Lewis and Meyer Reinhold.

I will try to scan the appropriate part later in the day and put it on my web-site.
Title: Re:A Forum for the Follis
Post by: mauseus on March 24, 2005, 07:54:53 am
Hi Peter,

That's the book I was thinking of! [I was nearly right with the title]. It gives a good selection of the 1000 or so prices "controlled" by Diocletian.

Regards,

Mauseus
Title: Re:A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on March 24, 2005, 08:27:22 am
Response to Replies 4 & 6, Mauseus and 5, Peter.

The total text for Diocletian's Edict on Prices.

I found the book Peter and Mauseus refer to in my library.  It is:

"Roman Civilization: Sourcebook II:The Empire," Naphtali Lewis & Meyer Reinhold, editors.  Harper Tourchbooks, 1966,Harper & Roe, New York, paperback, 652 pp.

From pp. 464 to 472 is the Edict on Maximum Prices and the list of prices, which starts with 100 denarii for "an army modius of wheat."

This and Sourcebook I:  The Republic, contain many interesting things for coin collectors.  I got my 2 volume set in a used book store.

Follibus Fanaticus
Title: Re:A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on March 24, 2005, 10:26:39 am
A response to Reply No 2 from Robert Brenchley

Let’s try a working definition for this discussion.  I am aware that there is a Byzantine follis, but that coin is not included in the discussion.

Follis:  A mostly bronze coin with a small amount of silver first issued by the Roman Emperor Diocletian (284-305) in about 294 at between 9 and 11 gm and probably continued to 346, when it had shrunk to about 1 1/2 gm.

I’m sure that I will have help in qualifying that definition.  I took several factors into consideration in an attempt to keep it simple.

RIC 7 calls everything till 337 "folles."  It hedges a bit, because it heads every listing of bronze "AES, FOLLES."  Since Sutherland, Carson and Bruun give me a choice, I’ll use the term follises.

RIC 8 calls the lesser-valued coins "Base Billon and Bronze."  I see no reason to change names till the reform; however, if someone gives me a good objection, I would be delighted to exclude aes coins from 337 to 346 from this discussion.  One needs a PhD in cryptic abbreviation to use RIC 8, even if all features of a coin are visible.

Next, let’s look at "The Classic Latin Dictionary," published by Follett, Chicago, 1946.  I use this one because I can lift it.  I’ve edited the citings to fit this discussion.

follis  -- is, masculine.  a leather bag. 1.  Word used by Plautus.  2.  Esp.  folles spirant maedacia;  in Juvenal, human lungs; follis fabrilis in Livy, a pair of bellows.  2.  A leather purse, Juvenal.

nummus  (numus) –i, masculine.  1.  money, coin.  Cicero, habere in nummis, to have in cash.  2.  a  sestertius, Cicero.  a farthing, Cicero: ad numum convenit, "it comes right to a farthing."

One reason to continue using the term follis for our coin:  It is an idiom for sestertius in Ciceronian Latin.

Title: Re:A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Severus_Alexander on March 24, 2005, 11:35:57 am
Sounds like a great collection.  Have you thought about creating a web site about the coins?   Forvm hosts such sites.

Thank you.
Title: Re:A Forum for the Follis
Post by: PeterD on March 24, 2005, 12:16:28 pm
In case anyone's still interested, I have posted Diocletian's Edict with prices, in Word Doc format, here.

http://www.aoti76.dsl.pipex.com/Dio_edict.doc

BTW I think English speakers nearly always use "Folles" as the plural of "Follis". "Follises" would be a bit hard to say!
Title: Re:A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on March 24, 2005, 05:11:13 pm
Response to Reply 10 from Peter

Folles or follises, how to say it?

I do like folles better because it's shorter.

If at my local coin show I ask, "Do you have any folles?", the response will be: "I don't sell recordings, but Gotkin does.  Perhaps he has a recording of that show."

Go to Gotkin, who sells a bit of everything, ask the same question, and he will reply: "I don't have Follies, but I have a great recording of Oklahoma."

So, I have learned to say the word with an extra syllable.  I am well aware that RIC, Sear and others use folles.

Does anyone else have a thought?  I am inclined to change to folles, because it will save space and keystrokes.

Follibus Fanaticus

P.S.  Now you know why I used fanaticus.  It attracts the coin's name into the dative,
Title: Re:A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Windchild on March 24, 2005, 07:00:49 pm
I think the word "folles" is now desut, the better word would be "nummus" "nummi" simply meaning "coin" because we have no idea how the roman called those coins. Folles were probaly a pouch of coin and probaly a distinct amount, but not the coin itself.

Follibus, do you really own a coin of each usurper? Do you own coin from "Domitius Alexander"? (a carthaginian usurper between 308 and 310 ad)
Title: Re:A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on March 24, 2005, 09:10:02 pm
Reply to Response 12

I, alas, own neither a Domitius Domitianus nor an Alexander of Carthage.  I do own a Romulus.  I got it from a man who specializes in U.S. paper money.  See my recent post, Response No. 13 under Ancient Clubs & Shows, Etiquette.
This dealer sold me an EF Ostia Romulus for way under market.  Did I tell any of my coin friends my source?  No.

I do like junk boxes.  I did pull a Theodora out of one some time ago.  Also, dealers do not take folles seriously.  I recently bought three folles for $100.  The worst looking of the three was a Maxentius from Aquleia with a CONSERV VRB SVAE reverse, nice enough, but the obverse inscription reads:  IMP MAXENTIVS P F AVG CONS II [RIC 125].  CONS II (309) seems rather late for a dating as consul on bronze.

Dealers often do not attribute coins correctly.  I bought a packaged follis attributed to Constantius I from Carthage.  It had a genius reverse and a K+Gamma mintmark. At 30 mm. it weighs 10.26 gm.  I had the devil of a time identifying it, but the legend reads: FL VAL CONSTANTINVS NOB CAES, a huge flan Constantine from c. 306 [RIC 24b].  If the name read CONSTANTIVS, it would be a Constantius I c. 295-96 [RIC 11a].

Follibus Fanaticus
Title: Re:A Forum for the Follis
Post by: PeterD on March 25, 2005, 12:24:34 pm
Although "Follis" was not the name of the the coin, nor was "Nummus".  "Follis" pretty well identifies the exact issue, whereas "Nummis" could be any nameless coin. RIC and Sear both use "Follis" and while that doesn't make them correct, they are the sources that most collectors use, so that is the term that I would use.

The original full weight Folles when completely silvered must have looked splendid. Although I only have a few Folles, I have several that are quite nice. My best ones were collected before the internet revolution. If anyone's interested, check out my web-site below. On the menu bar select "Rome/from Diocletian".
Title: Re:A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on March 26, 2005, 01:12:43 pm
AMMIANUS WHO?

When I meet a fellow collector who likes Roman coins from the 300’s, I usually get around to asking, "Have you read Ammianus Marcellinus?"  Nine times out of ten I get a blank stare of utter incomprehension.

Since most of the surviving work of Ammianus is easily available in a Penguin Classics paperback, available in most large bookstores and certainly on line, I thought I would give him a post on this site.

Teaser:  Did you know that Gratian was married to a lady that the Penguin book’s introduction terms Constantia 2.  She was a daughter of Constantius II and his third wife, Faustina.  Constantius II was the son of Constantine I and Fausta.  Constantine I was the son of Constantius I and Helena, and Fausta was a daughter of Maximianus Herculius,

Gratian certainly nailed down his claim to the throne by his marriage.  This was one well-connected lady.  I have never seen her mentioned in any coin book.

So, for this and other good reasons, the Penguin paperback is certainly worth a look.

Who:  Ammianus Marcellinus (c. 330 - c. 390/395 ?) was an army officer who served under Constantius II and Julian.  He retired to Rome after discharge (c. 371?), where he lived till his death.  He wrote a history that presents the late Roman world vividly.  He is considered "Rome’s last great historian."

What:  His history covered from Nerva till Gratian’s defeat at the battle of Adrianople in 31 books.  Books 1 through 13 are lost.  The surviving books, 14 through 31 cover the years 354 – 378.  Ammianus witnessed many of the events and knew most of the people he writes about.

Where:  Ammianus wrote at Rome in Latin.  

Ronald Syme often infers that the author of the "Historia Augusta" knew Ammianus’ book.  The author of "Historia Augusta" claims that book written during the reign of Diocletian as Augustus, which ended in 305; however, he writes that Constantius I, and thus Constantine I, are descendants of Claudius II Gothicus.  This false claim was first made in 311, and Constantine I even issued coins to promulgate the myth.  Syme thinks the author of "Historia Augusta" lifted this detail out of the lost part of Ammianus, then misdated it.

Why:  If you like Roman history, don’t miss this book.   A few details may whet your appetite.

On  Constantius II’s entrance into Rome in 357:  "Though he was very short, he stooped when he passed under a high gate; otherwise, he was like a dummy, gazing straight before him as if his head were in a vice and turning neither to right nor left."  (Penguin translation; p. 101)

On the papal election of 366.  The election of Damasus (305-384) as the 37th pope provided Ammianus, a pagan, a chance to prove that he was not shy about commenting on Christianity.  Because John Paul II, the 263d pope, looks ill, and a papal election looks likely, the following quote has a timely interest:

"Damasus and Ursinus, whose passionate ambition to seize the Episcopal throne passed all bounds, were involved in the most bitter conflict of interest, and adherents of both did not stop short of wounds and death…The efforts of his partisans secured victory for Damasus.  It is certain that in the basilica of Sicininus, where the Christians assemble for worship, 137 corpses were found in a single day, and it was with difficulty that the long-continued fury of the people was brought under control."

Ammianus Maximus.  "The Later Roman Empire (A.D. 354 - 378).  trans. Walter Hamilton.  Penguin Books, 1986, New York, 1986 (many printings), paperback, 506 pages.
Title: Re:A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Windchild on March 26, 2005, 03:16:51 pm
Hi Follibus.


It is a frquent misatribution to give those coin to Carthage because of the K. Carthage coint were labeled "PK" or were without mintmark.
Your coin seems to be a  RIC 9a or 11a from Cyzicus
Title: Re:A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on March 26, 2005, 03:59:00 pm
The coin is 11a from Cyzicus.  I left out the mint in my posting, but the coin doies illustrate frequent dealer error.  This is the largest and heaviest Constantine I that I own.

Follibus Fanaticus
Title: Re:A Forum for the Follis
Post by: curtislclay on March 26, 2005, 05:00:40 pm
Gratian's Constantia is not well known to numismatists, because no coins were issued for her.  She does enter numismatic discussions however, because of the title AVGG AVG on some of Gratian's coins, AVGG being interpreted as Augusti gener, Son-in-law of the Augustus, i.e. married to Constantius II's daughter Constantia.  I summarized Eckhel's commentary on this matter for Forum a week or two ago, topic Gratian GLORIA NOVI SAECVLI, under Roman Coins.
Title: Re:A Forum for the Follis
Post by: dougsmit on March 26, 2005, 05:06:34 pm
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/fld/CLASSICS/ammianus.html (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/fld/CLASSICS/ammianus.html)
or if you want a translation:
http://www.ammianus.info/historien.htm (http://www.ammianus.info/historien.htm)

Anyone have another link for a translation (English, maybe)?
Title: Re:A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on March 28, 2005, 11:33:35 pm
FOLLES WITH XXI ON THEM

Dear Private Writer with an interest in XXI folles:

I can so far only find one of the XXI folles in my collection.  It's a Maximianus  H of Alexandria;  Rx. GENIO POPV [] LI ROMANI, [ALE in ex.], with an XXI in field left and a delta in field right.  In other words, RIC 30b, a
C2 of c. 300.  It weighs [A scale is my latest toy.] 9.19 gm, a bit off the lower end of RIC's range of 9.25 gm to 11.0 gm.

I am not looking for XXI folles, but I find that collection by emperor by mint will dredge up a bit of everything.

My example is almost fully silvered, with silver worn off the highest spots on the coin.  I am finding quite a few folles off the low end of RIC weights.  

Conclusion:  Major collections tend to own heavy examples.

FOLLIBUS FANATICUS


Title: Re:A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on March 29, 2005, 01:09:38 am
FOLLIS COLLECTING: 1

STORAGE

I store my folles in an album designed for U.S. Large cents, 1793 – 1857.  The specific album I use is World Coin Library, No. 7099 Large Cents from the Dansco Corporation, 4313 West Jefferson Blvd., Los Angeles, CA, 90016. Each album contains seven 16-hole pages.  The holes are c. 29 – 30 mm.

1.  Unscrew the two screws at the page margins.  Remove the 7 pages, and flip them over.  Reinsert the pages and replace screws.  You now have blank facing pages that you can write on.  So far, I have found only one large follis that will not fit into the album.

2. I devote page 1 to Diocletian’s 15 mints.  I left the hole between Rome and Carthage blank.  I wrote the names of the Mints in RIC order, London to Alexandria, below each window.  Maxentius H, Constantius I, and Galerius. appear from 16 mints, so the hole between Rome and Carthage is labeled Ostia on their pages.  On some pages, I vary format.  Maxentius appears from six mints, so there’s room for Romulus [2 mints] on the Maxentius page.

3. I write data in pen below each window that contains a coin.  For example, the space under the top left hole on page 1, Diocletian, reads:  London/ no mint or officina marks/ RIC 6a [C2]/ c. 300, 8.69 gm.  I weighed the coin myself.

4. I do write in ink.  When I upgrade or replace a coin, I replace the data thusly.  I take a cloth, wet it with "Windex," a popular U.S. window cleaning fluid, and rub it on the writing.  This erases the ink nicely.  LET THE SPACE DRY.  Write in new data.

Now, I can compare my folles with each other just by flipping pages.  I can get a stylistic overview at a glance.

For smaller folles made between 307/309 and 313.  I use a U.S. quarter, 25-cent piece, album from the same company.  This album has 20 holes per page.

Folibus Fanaticus.
Title: Re:A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Windchild on March 31, 2005, 06:03:24 pm
Hey Follibus!

As I may told you in a previous post I'mworking on the mint of Carthage. My aim is to build a good die link study of carthage coins (297AD -310 AD).
In order to do that I have aleardy assembled a collection of more than 1000 pictures from than mint; and I'm greadyly looking to enlarge it....  ;D
I now illustrate all of the RIC number and legend breaks + a dozen of unlisted coin (without counting unlisted legend break).

As you seem to own a grat collection, I would love to have good quality pictures of yours follis from carthage...  :) ;)


Guillaume (gmalingue@yahoo.fr)
Paris - France
Title: Re:A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Windchild on March 31, 2005, 06:06:47 pm
.. and of course, if one of you folks need a pictures of some of those coin I would be delighted to share them!!
Once my studies over I will build an online picture databank. But that would require quite a lot of space... (I guess 500 meg. at least..) 8)
Title: Re:A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on April 02, 2005, 04:54:12 pm
If anyone wants to read about a new book, "Roman Bronze Coins...294 - 364 AD," look under: Coin of the Day, Constantine I,  CONSERV VRB SVAE, Reply 10.  This whole subject concerns a follis.

Follibus Fanaticus
Title: Re:A Forum for the Follis
Post by: roscoedaisy on April 04, 2005, 04:46:41 pm
Follibus!

So great to read this topic.  I too am an avid collector of Folles from this time period.  I concentrate mostly on the coins surrounding the reign of Constantius I and his fellows Caesars and Augusti as appropriate.  I am especially fond of the various fractions during this time period and have a growing collection of the 'quarter folles', a decent set of the VOT X and VOT XX of Carthage and Rome fractions, and a few of the ones that just don't seem to fit the mold.  I was wondering if you collected many fractions.

Anyway, here is my pride and joy - a silvered follis of Constantius I in my gallery:

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?p=19

RD
Title: Re:A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Windchild on April 04, 2005, 06:04:52 pm
Wow!

Great coin Roscoe!! It looks... new!! just out of the hamer!

The portrait is perfect but strangely the letters seems a bit worn, how do you explain that? an old die? a used coin or a weak strick?  

I'm also a great fan of the tetrachic "VOT" fractions!! I collect them (Carthage of course but also othe italian mint...) They all have a great similarity. And the fact that the bore no mint mark is quite strange... Even if I'm certain the come from Carthage, I know that some people, think the "FK" vota may come from Rome.
Title: Re:A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on April 04, 2005, 06:42:41 pm
AN UNUSUAL LEGEND

Goody [Latin, gloria; Italian, gioia].

The mail today brought me the first coin I ever bought over the net.  It's a Constantius I, Rome mint, c 300-301, described thusly:

Bust, laur., r.  CONSTANTIVS NOB CAES.  Rev.  The godess Money stands facing, but looking left.  Scales, cornucopia.  SACRA MON VRB AVGG ET CAESS ....In ex.. T and club.

This is RIC 102a, which normally has TT, but the notes on the
side say T and club, Ox.  It rates a rarity C.

The Failmezner book, page 154, translates the rev.  "The sacred money of city of our Augusti and Caesars."  I'd be inclined to render that:  either:  "The holy money at the City of our Emperors and Caesars"

My Latin dictionary says that "moneta" can also mean the mint, the place where the money was coined so how about:
"The sacred city mint of our Emperors and Caesars" or even consider an ablative or locative case for MONETA.  In that case it reads:  [Struck] "At the sacred City Mint of our Emperors and Caesars."

Never be without a hefty Latin dictionary -- one that gives all meanings of a word and which quotes examples of use.
The VRB, read urb, can mean urbs, a city or the city of Rome, or [in Virgil] the dwellers in a city.  If it stands for urbanus, an adjetive, it can urban or of the city.  If it is the adjetive used as a plural noun, urbani --orum, the inhabitants of the city.  So we can even get:  "[Struck] at the sacred mint of our Emperors and Caesars for the inhabitants of the City."

It might have meant all of the above.  Any comments?

Also, see my comments on the book, "Constantine and Eusebius," on my latest reply in the Medieval section , under Papal Election Coins.  If anyone would like a review of the book, they have only to ask.

Cheers

Follibus Fanaticus
Title: Re:A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Robert_Brenchley on April 05, 2005, 05:31:56 am
Is this legend variant with 'VRB' used anywhere apart from Rome? I'm decidedly no expert on these, but if it's specific to the Rome mint that would suggest that it's a reference to Rome.
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: curtislclay on April 05, 2005, 10:34:44 am
I think the legend describes the type.  Moneta Urbica means mint of Rome, so the legend is "the revered Mint of Rome of our Emperors and Caesars".
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on April 05, 2005, 03:33:10 pm
DIGAMMA, SIX LOST IN TIME

As the alphabet spread across Ancient Greece in the mid 700’s B.C., each fiercely
independent city-state picked and chose letters and forms of letters.  The version coin collectors, scholars and fraternity pledges today know and love is the Attic version, as used at Athens.  Most Greek literature arrived at Athens and was copied in the Attic version of the alphabet.  Copies spread from Athens to other places, notably Alexandria, Egypt.  The alphabet from Attica prevailed.

Not all coins came from Athens.  For example, coins of Corinth sometimes exhibit a small circle with a straight tail, a koppa.  The letter more or less was sounded like an English Q, so the Corinthians called their town "Quorinth," but the Athenians said "Korinth."  Citizens of each city derided those of the other as bumpkins who spoke barbaric Greek.  They understood each other’s speech perfectly; they hated each other’s
politics and way of life intensely.

The biggest event in the alphabet’s early history was the writing down at Athens of a definitive version of the Iliad in the between the 540’s and the 530/20’s B.C.  Homer composed in Ionian Greek about 750 B.C.  He pronounced a letter called the digamma, and pre-500 B.C. non-Athenian manuscripts probably wrote the digamma, which resembled an F and was pronounced like an English W.  Athenians hated the sound W, reviled the digamma, and they omitted all digammas from their-all important manuscript, which became the gold standard.  Immense problems arose.  Homer’s word for the city Troy, Ilium, began with a digamma, so he said "Wilium," and if he had a name for his poem it was the "Wiliad."  That changed when the Athenians created the definitive written version, The Iliad.

Digamma survived, despite all.  It was the sixth letter of an original Greek alphabet.  It stood for the number six.  It would be used as number 6, but how people wrote it would change.

Next:  Digamma: The Ancient Greek Number 6: From the second year of the 77th Olympiad to the third year of the 271th Olympiad, known to the Romans as MAXENTIUS, COS, ET ROMULUS, COS, around Rome; DIOCLETIANUS, COS X, ET GALERIUS, COS VII, most other places in the Roman Empire. 




Title: Digamma on Coins
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on April 09, 2005, 04:26:03 pm
THE DIGAMMA ON COINS:  A QUICK LOOK

[Read Response No. 30  first]

Look at the first coin issued at  Elis, a town in Greece’s Peloponnesos, from c. 471 – 452 B.C.  I find this on page 264, Volume One, of my two volume "Greek Coins and Their Values" by David R. Sear [1978 edition].  There it goes by the nom de plume S [for Sear] No. 2859.  This stater is also known as Seltman [Temple Coins of Olympia] No. 2 or BMC [vol.] 10, [No.] 3.  To the Eleans, the first year of issue was the second year of the 77th Olympiad.  The Elans, and other ancients, never heard of years BC [much less of the verbose BCE].  The individual nicknamed Christ [Greek for "the anointed"] would not appear for about 468 years.

The Elean stater [S 2859] has a reverse that shows Zeus’ thunderbolt between the letters: F/A.  The F is not the F we know, sixth letter of our alphabet.  It’s a dilemma, the sixth letter of a Greek alphabet used at many Greek cities, but not at Athens.  [See Response  ]
 
The Eleans were kind enough to spell out the F-word on Sear 2867, It reads: FA:Greek_Lambda:EI, pronounced:  Walei, waly, or walaye depending upon which part of ancient Greece the speaker came from.  You can not say it in the Attic [Athenian] Greek of the time, because the Athenians hated the F, digamma, or W-sound.  They did not use it; you can definitely say: Athenians of the Golden Age hated F-words.

WA:Greek_Lambda:EI means "people."  F/A  means "[Coin issued by] The People of Elis."  Notice they spell Elis with an A, alpha.  Looks like those Peloponniteans did not agree with Athenians on anything.

Digamma survived, because it stood for 6, six, in the Greek number system. BUT IT CHANGED.  Let’s fast forward to the sole rule of Gallienus, 260-268.  My specimen of RIC 194a [FORTUNA REDUX, on the reverse, in ex., exhibits a strange retrograde question mark [?].

At the time the Rome mint used control marks, and they used letters, placed all over the reverses.  They used P, for prima –first; S, for secunda—second; T, for tertia –third; and Q  for quartus –fourth.  Fifth is quintus.  Confession might enter.  The celators used good old Roman numeral V for fifth, and they used VI for sixth.  Why?  Sextus means sixth, and it would have been confused with Secundus, for second officina.

Next, some genius [of the Roman People] used the Greek alphabet to number officina.  All went well with A, B, [Gamma], [Delta], E, and then what’s that?  The Roman celators probably never heard of a digamma, but they did know the letter six in Greek.  They introduced on coins our drunken question mark to mean six, then continued with Z, seventh, and H, eighth.

The tidy Diocletian led the first Tetrarchy.  The drunken question mark went.  It was replaced by an upright question mark.  It’s still a digamma, meant to signify six or sixth.  An S replaced the question mark.   That’s still a digamma, because it still means six or sixth.

It is absolutely not a Greek S, or sigma, written <sum>.  Look on page xxxvi of your Sear Greek coin book.  <sum> means 200.  Did any ancient mint have 200 officina?  Sear also ignores the digamma; he only gives S to mean 6.  Could he not find a single digamma that means 6 in all the Greek coins in his two volumes? 

So, for the follis, lets call the marking  "S" a digamma, a Roman digamma, a Roman botched digamma, wherever it means 6.  Where S means 2, lets call it an S.  But, unless you find a coin from the very large mints, Glockamora and Shangra-la, do not call it a sigma, meaning 200.

Cheers,
 Follibus Fanaticus
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Jochen on April 09, 2005, 05:12:32 pm
Hi Follibus Fanaticus!

I am reading your fascinating posts, thank you! But now I have a question. What's the matter with the Greek STIGMA as symbol for 6? It looks like the minuscle of SIGMA and should be developed from the ligated SIGMA-TAU. I have never seen a Greek DIGAMMA on a coin as a number.

Curious
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Rupert on April 09, 2005, 05:31:54 pm
So the Athenians said "Elis", while the Eleans themselves said "Walis". The A/E- switch marks the difference between Doric (A) and Ionian (E) Greek. For example, "mother" is "meter" (with the e's pronounced about as in French "maitre") in Ionian Greek, Attic and the Macedonian Koiné which we learn in school as Ancient Greek, and "matar" (a's pronounced like in "father") in Doric dialects, like for example in Sparta. I'm not good enough at ancient Greek to tell whether the omission of W is also a Ionian speciality, or whether it just came with time, like the omission of H at the beginning of a word in all Romanic languages.

Rupert
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on April 10, 2005, 01:31:36 am
Two Old but Interesting Letters

Victor:

Here's a response I sent to Jim.

Follibus
----------
From: [Follibus Fanaticus]
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 20:34:35 -0500
To: James Stevenson <jstevenson@rossperry.com>
Subject: Re: Roman Bronze Coins by Failmegzer

Dear Mr. Stevenson:

I have been using extracts from Victor's book as a collecting tool and have been very pleased with them.  Naturally, I have not bothered to tell my dealer friends that such a book is in the making.  I have placed many coins hailed as rare, rarity 2, and even a rarity 4 into my collection.  The twoor three volumes of Roman Imperial Coins [RIC], if you can find them, are
now very expensive, and most dealers do not own them.  I own them, and Iknow that Victor's book will update and add to Roman coin collecting.

For example, a highly respected dealer, this Saturday, sold me a coin RIC rates as rare, the sly British way of saying 20 examples known, for $X, while he had a C3, meaning very common, priced at $2X.

The book will fill a need -- especially when it summarizes and updates two to three RIC's that go for $3X and up each.

For World Coin News I would propose an article that says the book covers an almost unknown area of a major coinage -- and a coinage that contains many attractive coins.  World Coin News appeals to collectors of foreign, medieval and ancient coins.

Coin World, with its much larger circulation, can be called the coin newspaper for "middle America."  I stopped reading it years ago, because it harps on endless tiny varieties of US coins, such as the number of leaves in a wreath, the position of the letters US on a reverse, or the angle of a drapery on a seated Liberty half dollar.

This audience has one interest that fits the book's context perfectly --religion.  The period of Victor's book covers the era that Christianity first became legal and then became the main religion of the Roman Empire.  Coins reflect this and those coins are in Victor's book.

I think the book could sell with good marketing.


Sincerely,


Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on April 10, 2005, 02:17:54 am
ANCIENT GREEK LETTERS

Dear CURIOUS:

The Greek sigma large, medium or small always means the number 200, and never 6.   The form S is a digamma, never a sigma.  As far as we know [get that catch all], the ANCIENT Greeks always used the a capital sigma.

It was the booby Roman mint masters who came up with S to mean digamma.

Now for the small Greek sigma, written as an o with a string hanging out the top in the beginning and the middle of a word, and as a small s-like thing at the ends of words.  You will not find it on any ANCIENT Greek inscription, nor do the few surviving Ancient Greek manuscripts ever use it.

Why?

The ANCIENT Greeks used all what-we-call capital letters.  Small Greek letters do not arise till the Byzantine Empire.  Their manuscripts contain almost all small letters, which they invented.  Look at Ancient Greek and Greek Imperial coins.  Not a small Greek letter in sight.  There are, true, some mangled monstrosities on later Ancient coins in Greek, but no system of small letters.

The Byzantines also invented the dreaded breathing marks and accent marks, probably to aid students who studied Ancient Greek works.  The most bizarre Byzantine invention stands as the iota subscript, which means placing an iota under a long vowel.  Get photographs of ANCIENT Greek inscriptions.  You will find no iota subscripts there or on coins.  The ancients wrote: AI, HI, and Omega+I.  I’ve seen all three on coins, where a Byzantine would have tucked the I under the long vowel.

I think the posting on the Forvm site is a good starter on the Greek alphabet; however, coins rank as an advanced study.  Someone needs to tackle: THE GREEK ALPHABET ON ANCIENT GREEK COINS.   Someone needs to tackle: THE GREEK ALPHABET ON BYZANTINE COINS.  That someone ain’t’a gonna be me.

Cheers,

Follibus Fanaticus
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on April 19, 2005, 03:00:21 am
ERIC WINS THE GOLDEN QUACKSIE AWARD

The Board of Governors of The Golden Quacksie Association for the Arts and Sciences today bestowed its highest award, the Golden Quacksie to the writers, editors and proofreaders for the new Encyclopedia of Roman Imperial Coins [ERIC].

Follibus Fanatics, board member, expressed highest delight, because the award involved a follis of Maximian Herculus, resembling RICVI; Ticinum 68b or 69.  The illustrated coin, however, has a dot in the upper right [shorthand ;- /. /T T] indicating an issue in about December 306, rather than one of autumn 306, that commemorated the emperor’s first retirement.

A High Official of the United States Government founded the Quacksie Award, a reward to a subordinate for something so incredibly stupid that it deserved officewide recognition.  The Golden Quacksie was a 2-foot high,  loud yellow, plastic statue of a duck on wheels.  It stayed on the awardee’s desk until another subordinate did something even more stupid.  Then Quacksie had a new home.

ERIC’s Quacksie achievement may be read on page xiii, under the heading, "Identifying Roman Coins."  The follis reverse shows two female figures, goddesses or female geniuses, standing and facing each other.  It reads: PROVIDENTIA DEORUM QUIES AUGG [English uppers].

ERIC translates that: "By the providence of the Gods there is peace."  We congratulate the authors of ERIC for neither looking at the [huge, color] illustration nor possessing a good Latin to English dictionary.  It looks like the "Dirty Old Books" publishing company of Asheville, North Carolina, threw all their dirty [dusty] old Latin dictionaries in the trash. 

Had they retained their books, they would have seen that QUIES has the meaning "RETIREMENT."  Had they looked at the coin and a short history or two, they might have noticed that Mr. Diocles and Mr. Maxo Herco, father of another Max plus Fausta, retired from power about the time the coin was issued.

So let’s look at the huge, color photo again and translate it: FORESIGHT OF THE GODS – RETIREMENT OF THE EMPERORS; which label tags the two ladies on the coin as genii of the same names.

The ERIC folks will retain Golden Quacksie for a good long time.  I hear they are being seriously considered for the Alice Wonderland Award for the Understanding of Ancient Culture.   

Follibus Fanaticus
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Steve Minnoch on April 19, 2005, 05:17:32 am
I have next to no connection with ERIC (never ever seen it) or it's author other than a common shared membership to this board and other lists (also shared btw by Mr Fanaticus).   

I do however find this last post pretty obnoxious - if this is an attempt at humour it fails.   Intended or not it does come across like you have an axe to grind.

I don't have nor intend to purchase the book, but I am at least aware that an errata forum for it has been set up here:
http://eric.commonbronze.com/
Why not bring it to their attention, preferably with a greater degree of graciousness.

Steve


 
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on April 19, 2005, 06:03:03 am
Dear Steve:

I must say

1.  I bought the book, and I would buy it again.

2.  I enjoyed the book, especially foir its light style.

3.  I find the collector slant that the book has most helpful.  It will say this coin is to be seen quite often, but is still expensive -- a way of saying overpriced.  That a coin is rare but modestly priced  --  most of the coins are ugly.  it also gives auction results on rare, rare coins.

4.  If you do not own all of RIC, buy it immediately.

5.  If you do own RIC, it's still a big help.

6.  The photos are great and in color.

7.  If you don't intend to buy or look at the book, what's your objection.

Follibus Fanaticus
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Steve Minnoch on April 19, 2005, 06:08:46 am
Not that it is relevant, but I own all of RIC. (one of the reasons I have little interest in ERIC, I am simply not the target market)

My objection is simply to the tone of your previous post.

Steve
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on April 19, 2005, 06:53:38 am
Dear Steve:



The tone is one of humor, a dangerous but rewarding device. It brings out response, which is the virtue that overrides all its faults.

The form is one of a press release, and it sounds uncomfortably like the stuff you see in the paper or hear over the tube.

This is a classical mode of writing.  Really give Cicero a good read.  His jokes and sly innuendoes got him in plenty of trouble with many people we collect on coins.  One great exchange was with Pompey in front of all the "best men," after Caesar had chased them out of Italy.

Pompey screamed at Cicero, "Where is your son-in-law?" referring to a supporter of Caesar.  Cicero shot back "Where’s your father-in-law?"  We all, and everybody in that tent, knew that Pompey’s father-in-law was Caesar himself.  Cato, the Younger, Caesar’s worst enemy, nearly choked himself to death laughing at that one.

Pompey’s name originally had only two words, Gnaeus Pompeius.  He could not use his father’s third name, Strabo [cross-eyes], because Pompey’s  father was cross-eyed and the Pompey was not.  Later in life, he took the name Magnus [great].  When a Roman became friends with someone, they called each other by their third name.  To get buddy-buddy Pompey would have to day:  "Call me Magnus."  Cicero really had fun with that one.

We collect classical coins.  Why not develop a classical sense of humor?

Lastly, there’s the Dirty Old Books publishing house.  Under the modern credo, "There’s no such thing as bad publicity," I suspect they may profit from their prize

Cheers,

Follibus Fanaticus
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on April 22, 2005, 11:04:51 am
Hello
I found this coin recently,I tought it was Denarius becouse head was too convex.But after i wash them I saw it is Licinius and I found in catalogue that it is follis.I am interested is it Ae,but fully silvered or Silver coin.He is still uncleaned,and I dont want to take off silver from coin.How can i clean them?
Best Regards
ps.sorry about my bad english
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: roscoedaisy on April 22, 2005, 12:34:25 pm
That looks pretty clean already, nice coin btw.  The black may be oxidized silvering so dont scrub it off.
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on April 22, 2005, 07:25:48 pm
RESPONSE TO REPLY NO. 41

Dear Marcus:

The photo in reply 41 presents, to me at least, a prime argument that a photo is not enough -- especially for some bronze coins  -- like the follis.  It would be extremely helpful to have the legends, mint mark, and officina marks typed out.

Two other items would help, size and weight.  I just bought a scale.  I am finding that some of my folles fall above and below the weights given by RIC.  I am now inclined to express this with words to the effect:  "RIC suggests a weight between x and y," when I find a coin that is x minus something or y plus something.

Follibus Fanaticus

Weighing folles -- only Fanaticus Maximus would do that!
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: lv88 on April 22, 2005, 08:18:48 pm
Hi Marcus Aurelius,

Move your post under a new topic to unclean coin discussion.

Or otherwise Admin please do this.

Levon
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: virtvsprobi on April 23, 2005, 04:49:23 pm
Jochen asks What's the matter with the Greek STIGMA as symbol for 6? It looks like the minuscle of SIGMA and should be developed from the ligated SIGMA-TAU.

Dr. Buttrey explains (original posting from Moneta-L 14.05.2003):

(1) The digamma was the 6th letter of the archaic Greek alphabet,
representing our sound "w", and named "wau" (wow!).  After it fell
out of speech, and out of the alphabet, it was named "digamma" by later
generations who didn't know it directly -- the new name describes its
shape, looking like one gamma on top of another.  The shape survived and
was taken up into the Latin alphabet in the same position but with a
different sound (unknown in classical Greek) -- it is our F (same shape,
same position).
    The Greeks did not have a separate system of symbols to represent
numbers, as we have with our so-called Arabic numerals.  Among several
systems they developed alphabetic numeration, which I believe is not
attested before the 3rd cent. BC.  Anyhow the digamma (F), no longer used
in written Greek, was retained for the number 6.  (In the same way the
qoppa, which had been abandoned because kappa served perfectly well, was
retained for numeration, in its original position in the alphabet, as it
is in ours, between P and R; and represented the number 90.)
    Even in antiquity the digamma was taking on a cursive form, which came
to look somthing like a square C with a little tail.

(2) There is no such thing as an ancient numeral stigma.  This is an
illusion, based on a modern misunderstanding, and is something that still
needs to be corrected in Unicode.  The ancient word "stigma" means a mark,
a scar, a tattoo, and has nothing to do with the digamma or with
numeration.
   With the invention of printing in the 15th cent. the new Greek fonts
copied manuscript hands, and included not just individual letters but all
kinds of fancy abbreviations and ligatures.  One ligature was the
combination sigma-tau, ST, which got the name of "stigma", I suppose
modelled on "sigma", that is as "sigma" = S, so "stigma" = ST.
   Meanwhile the digamma had gone on being used in alphabetic numeration
for "6", in manuscript Greek, and then in the earliest printed Greek --
and indeed is so used to this day.  Unfortunately, a close similarity
developed between the shape of the ST ligature and that of the developed,
cursive digamma.  As a result the name "stigma" came to be applied
mistakenly to both of them.  It is still so used, or rather misued even
today.  For example, alphabetic numeration is found in the paragraphs and
subparagraphs of legislation; and in modern Greek dictionaries under
"stigma" you find one meaning as the number 6.
   This is all a misunderstanding that goes back several centuries, and is
now fixed permanently in the language.
   What is yet more annoying, the ligatures of the earliest printed Greek
have by now all been resolved into their separate letters, so the
combination once described by the term "stigma" is just printed as regular
sigma tau, and the typographic term "stigma" has gone completely out of
use.  Yet the word survives, wrongly, in alphabetic numeration for the
character still used for "6" -- which is really the good old wau/digamma
in cursive form, misunderstood.
   It survives, I should say, in dictionaries, but not I think in speech.
Hardly any modern Greek alphabetic fonts include a symbol for it.  So when
they have to use letters numerically they are as follows:  [I can't
provide Greek letters here: imagine them] --

  1=A' alpha    2=B' beta    3=G' gamma    4=D' delta    5=E' epsilon
  6=ST' "stigma"  ...and so on.  That is, they mis-name the digamma
"stigma", and then don't have a character to print it, so they print
"sigma tau" instead as an abbreviation.  And so pronounce it too: I've
tried it on a modern unversity-educated Greek, who read it off as "sigma
tau", not as "stigma", and actually did not know that term.

Anyhow, the ancient number 6 was represented by wau/digamma, and there's
an end of it.  Forget stigma: it didn't exist as a numerical notion;
that's just a relatively modern mistake.

Ted Buttrey

Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: virtvsprobi on April 23, 2005, 05:00:27 pm
Another quote from Dr. Buttrey, also from Moneta-L:

[...] Nonetheless this has nothing to do with the reality of the Greek letter
wau/digamma, and its use in antiquity to represent "6".  Forget stigma in
antiquity -- there was no such character, there was no such Greek letter.
There has never been such a Greek letter, ever: it represents the medieval
(manuscript) and modern (15th-19th cent. printing) ligature of two
letters, S + T.  No ancient would have understood "stigma" to mean a
number, or would have taken the character in coin dates to have been
anything but a digamma.

In that regard, the names for the Greek numbers are attested plentifully
in the ancient literature.  "Stigma" too is attested, but not as a number:
mark, scar, tattoo; from the same stem as the verb stizo, to make a mark
on something.  It has no other meaning even into medieval times: See
Sophocles' (not the dramatist) Lexicon of Byzantine Greek, which engages
late antique Greek up to 1000 AD: there is not a trace of "stigma" as
either a ligature or a number-- that came later.

TB
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on April 23, 2005, 07:44:24 pm
Numismatists:

We're coin collectors.  I look at my Sear "Greek Coins and Their Values" under Elis and see [mostly] the letters F - A, and retrograde letters [not often] A - backwards F on photos of coins dating from 471 BC to "after 191 BC.  That's a digamma [wau] and an alpha.

That means that the digamma was still written, at least on coins of Elis, quite late.  In 452-432 [See Sear 2867] the mintmasters at Elis were kind enough to spell the word out FA lambda EI, or WALEI.

In future coin books might it not be a good idea to say: "Coins of Elis are often marked F - A, digamma - alpha, meaning [for] the People of Elis.  The digamma, or wau, was a Greek letter that fell out of the manuscript tradition in about..... Some think it began to fall out when it was not included in a manuscript of the Iliad prepared for festival use at Athens in about 530 [?] BC."

Notice that "began to fall out" business.  We know from coins that it was "in" at Elis for at least 300 more years.

The use as "6" is routine, because F, digamma, was the 6th letter of the alphabet.  The changes that overcame the F form of digamma should send collectors running to their Roman and Roman Imperial coins.  The reborn digamma is there.  Wow, I mean wau!  It still means 6.

At first it resembles a question mark of sorts [?]; then a question mark that fell down.  Next, some genius at the mint reduplicated the curve in the question mark, making it look like Roman S.

Follis collectors look at your coin.  Is that "S" a Greek digamma, meaning six, or a Roman S, as in semis, which often means Secundus; two, or second.  At the Rome mint, which uses the Greek and Roman alphabets to number officina, this can be critical for dating a coin.  Other mints also use both alphabets.

Follibus Fanaticus
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: dougsmit on April 23, 2005, 08:15:34 pm
A rule that must be learned by anyone intending to study the coins they collect is that one can not study only the individual coin but must observe also how that coin fits into the scheme of things at the mint.  If a coin exists with an S, we need to see if the same mint/time also produced coins with A, B etc. or P, T etc.  If the former, the S (probably with a weaker lower half) is the numeral 6.  If the latter, it must be a 2.  Every mint played by their own rules at least to a degree and what you think you know about one, as often as not, will lead you astray when applied elsewhere.

FolFan:  As a person I would never get into a trivia contest against, you must be able to name the Greek city that retained the qoppa (other archaic letter mentioned as a part of the numeral system) long after it dropped from use in general.   Another:  Do the math problem and answer in Greek  EOX plus TKA equals____?
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Heliodromus on April 24, 2005, 12:26:53 am
Hello Follibus!

Maybe you missed the follis I submitted for for you folllicial enjoyment.. A rarity, and sporting a retrograde digamma as well!

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=18507.0

Ben

Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Rupert on April 24, 2005, 06:23:59 am
"Greece" was not one state but a mass of poleis big and small, with everybody speaking their own dialect, which in turn belonged to one of the bigger group of dialects like Doric, Ionian etc. So the Eleans still wrote WALEION in classical times, the Corinthians had their Qoppa on the coins (it's another question whether these latters were still used in everday life and "normal" words!), and many of the staters of Heracleia Lucaniae still show a Greek H (not Eta!) in the fourth and even third century BC. It looks like a T turned 90° counterclockwise and precedes the initial Eta in the ethnic, so it must be the H. I marked the letter in the pic, which is from Coinarchives and unfortunately shows a coin not belonging to me.

Rupert
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on April 25, 2005, 05:31:44 am
All Follis Lovers:

Do not miss Ben B's post under "Coin of the Day.  It's a Max Daza with a reverse IOVI PROPAGAT ORBIS TERRARVM.

PLEASE PUT YOUR REACTIONS TO MY POST ON THAT SITE.  I think i will get some responses for this great coin.

All i can do is say the 6th letter of the old Greek alphabet -- WAU.

Follibus Fanaticus
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on April 25, 2005, 12:47:59 pm
CLARITY OR PERSONALITY

Last Sunday, I found a follis not from my field.  I snapped it up:

CONSTANTIVS IVN NOB CAES.  Constantius II, r., laur., dr., cuir. /CLARITAS REIPUBLICAE.  Sol [Apollo] stands l., raises r. hand, holds globe in l., chlamys across l. shoulder; B SIS in ex.   2.1 mm, 2.86 gm.  RIC7 Siscia 37.

I usually stop my collection at 212/213 – the demise of Daza, the closing of the Ostia mint, or the end of RIC6.  The little follis I bought Sunday is an RIC7 coin, but it had several points to recommend itself.

1. It’s the last bow for the old gods at the Siscia mint.  Their appearances are few at other mints from 317.  Victory hangs on, but she was only a genius, not a great god.
2. Constantius II, named after grandfather Constantius I, has been promoted to Caesar at 3 years of age.  The portrait shows a young teenager.
3. Constantine I’s favorite god, Sol [Apollo], is no longer a comes  -- an official rank at court.  He, maybe, and maybe not, has a new title "claritas," which like "comes" is a Latin noun. 
Claritas  --atis, feminine (clarus) clearness, brightness, brilliancy.  Transferred meanings: clearness of the mind, plainness, fame, a celebrity, renown.

The meanings clearness, brightness and brilliancy certainly go with the sun [Sol].  Of the transferred meanings, the nouns, clearness of mind, plainness, fame and renown don’t fit and sometimes don’t make sense.  What about a celebrity?  A celebrity is a famous person who has not done much, if anything at all.  Think nighttime TV, which speaks of models and show contestants with the same seriousness as heads of state and inventors.

Now back to claritas.  Sol [Apollo] in the view of pagans had performed many deeds.  He is more than a personality.  What about the 3-year-old Constantius II?  "Personality of (or for) the State" fits him perfectly.  What is probably intended:  "Constantius, Junior, noble Caesar, a [new] Personality for the State."

What is probably implied:  "A bright, brilliant, renowned personality [who will be leader] of the State."

Note:  Chlamys: Large upper garment of wool, often of purple and gold, worn in Greece, Cicero, Virgil.

Follibus Fanaticus
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Rupert on April 25, 2005, 02:14:12 pm

All i can do is say the 6th letter of the old Greek alphabet -- WAU.

Follibus Fanaticus
BTW, in German the letter V, although not 6th but 22th in the alphabet, is pronounced F, except in foreign words where it's pronounced like English V, and named "Vau". Talk about ancient heritage in everyday life!

Rupert
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Heliodromus on April 25, 2005, 05:57:30 pm
Re: Clariitas Reipvblicae

Diocletian had issued an ant with a similar "Claritas Avgg" reverse featuring Sol for Maximianus as Caesar, as well as for himself, so I would assume Constantine's "Claritas Reipvblicae" - issued for his new Caesars - to be inspired from this type. The other type Constantine issued for the new Caesars, Principi Ivventvtis, was also a traditional one for the occasion.

Given the choice of Sol to go with the Claritas legend in both cases, I'd guess that the meaning of Claritas would be related to the concept of the brightness - perhaps the bright future of the republic given the new generation of Caesars. The Claritas type, issued from 317-318, overlapped with the Soli Invicto Comiti type, which also ended in 318, so Sol's appearance here can't be considered as a "demotion"... in fact as late as 326 he appeared on a solidus crowning Constantine!

Ben
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Robert_Brenchley on April 26, 2005, 12:47:20 pm
If PRINCIPI IVVENTNTIS was a taditional type for new Caesars, how does that jibe with Constantine's retention of it in his early days as Augustus?
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Heliodromus on April 26, 2005, 01:39:55 pm
If PRINCIPI IVVENTNTIS was a taditional type for new Caesars, how does that jibe with Constantine's retention of it in his early days as Augustus?

I don't know - it's an interesting question. I've seen this anomoly questioned before (in Failmezger?). I think he continued to use the type all the way up to c.312!

It's a reverse legend that goes a long way back - perhaps someone who knows something about the history of it may be able to shed some light on it.

The only guess that comes to mind is that perhaps Constantine saw himself (or wanted to portray himself) as representing a younger generation, and so clung to the appelation "prince of youth", but I'm not sure if the legend really refers to the "prince" himself or his subjects.

Ben
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Robert_Brenchley on April 26, 2005, 03:46:34 pm
I have one dated by RIC to late 312-313.
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on May 01, 2005, 06:45:10 am
Hello
I found this follis recently.Maximinus ll Daia.Can anybody tell me RIC number.
Thank you
Title: Re:A Forum for the Follis
Post by: HT on May 01, 2005, 08:54:24 am
For Diocletian's Edicts see:
http://www.tulane.edu/~august/handouts/601ccdoc.htm
From the website there are 3 names for 3 denominations of Fel Temp Reparatio coinage, they are maiorina, centenionalis and nummus. So the type of horseman and galley are maiorina, the barbarian and double-captive are centenionalis and the phoenix is the lowest. Later the two lower denominations were cancelled. So what is the name of the remained (debased) horseman? Maiorina or centenionalis or nummus?
Why the dealers around the world are just calling the FTR coinage as centenionalis and half-centenionalis? From the website http://www.coinusmaximus.us/denominations.htm, I found the terms double-centenionalis, centenionalis and half-centenionalis. Is the double-centenionalis mean the 'pecunia maiorina'(Chi-Rho coins?) of Magnentius and Decentius? Now we still have two terms centenionalis and half-centenionalis. Maybe the centenionalis is the horseman and/or galley and the half-centenionalis is barbarian and captive. How about the phoenix one? Still calling the nummus?
And what is the value of the coins from Constantine the Great in FTR coinage? They are counted as the nummus (smallest denomination)?
Please help, thanks very much!!
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Steve Minnoch on May 01, 2005, 01:54:12 pm
My understanding:

1. There are no Constantine the Great FTR coins.

2. There is no general agreement about how to exactly apply the terms Maiorina and Centenionalis, the name Centenionalis is usually applied to the AE2 size coin, some apply the term Maiorina to the AE1 size coins (e.g. Julian's Bull) but others argue it is simply a synonym for Centenionalis.  RIC takes the conservative approach of just using the labels "AE1", "AE2" etc. based on size. 

3. Terms like "half-centenionalis" and "double-centenionalis" are modern inventions for coins for which we do not know the ancient name.  The use of the terms by dealers is probably reflective of what catalogue they use.

4. The word nummus literally means "coin".  It is argued that it is a better term for the coin usually called the follis, accepted by (among others) Patrick Bruun the author of RIC VII. It definitely comes into play after the reform of Anastasius where the large letters on Byzantine coins indicate multiples of nummi (e.g. M = 40 nummi).

Steve
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: PeterD on May 01, 2005, 02:15:07 pm
HT: If you find the answers, please let me and everyone else know!!

The web-site I quoted seems to contain the notes for students of Kenneth W. Harl, who wrote 'Coinage in the Roman Economy'. He, like many writers, writes as if what he is saying is a done deal. In fact nobody knows exactly what the denominations and values were in this period.

The names pecunia maiorina, centenionalis and nummus come from contemporary documents but simply mean 'big money', 'a hundredth of something' and 'small coin'; no exact indication as to what they refer. The chronology is something like this:

318 AD: VLPP coins (which some call a Centenionalis) replace the Follis. This, with other designs, goes up and down in size (different denominations? who knows) until...

348 AD: The FTR series is introduced. There are two slightly different sizes of Centenionalis  with 'Falling horseman', 'barbarian/hut' and other designs with a smaller phoenix type as 'Half Centenionalis'. The larger type of Centenionalis was mainly struck in the west and the smaller in the east. They may have had different values, but again who knows?

350: Magnetius produced a large coin that is often called a Double Centenionalis. Some have speculated that it was produced because he did not have enough silver to make silver coins.

354: Constantius II banned the 'pecunia maiorina'. Which one was he referring to? Take your pick.

The problem is, of course, is that to assign a value to a coin we need to know how many there were to a silver or gold coin - or if they were in fact still tied to one another at this stage. Was size/weight that important? It must have been difficult keeping track if it was.
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: dougsmit on May 01, 2005, 05:13:08 pm


348 AD: The FTR series is introduced. There are two slightly different sizes of Centenionalis  with 'Falling horseman', 'barbarian/hut' and other designs with a smaller phoenix type as 'Half Centenionalis'. The larger type of Centenionalis was mainly struck in the west and the smaller in the east. They may have had different values, but again who knows?

It was my understanding that the three coins of 348 differed in terms of silver content and were an attempt to restore a system of denominations.  Working from memory, the second with left facing busts contained about half the silver of the so calling one half or double something makes sense.  I still believe the best answer is that we don't know.  Never assume a coin of earlier period had a value in terms of later systems.  Call-ins and recoinage of metal was a (how common?) practice. 
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: HT on May 02, 2005, 09:00:16 am
318 AD: VLPP coins (which some call a Centenionalis) replace the Follis. This, with other designs, goes up and down in size (different denominations? who knows) until...
VLPP coins? What they are?
1. There are no Constantine the Great FTR coins. 
In here I'm asking about the old coins, such as 'campgate' and 'double victory' in FTR coinage: Were they abolished or...!?
And I know another type of centenionalis: emperor with double labarum. But the coins (of this type) do not bear the words 'Fel Temp Reparatio' but 'Concordia Militvm'. I don't call this type as pecunia maiorina only the type of Magnetius. Can anyone tell me more about them?
Here is my personal calling for late Roman coins:
294-347AD:follis, debased follis, AE
348-361AD:centenionalis(half or debased whatever...) for FTR coinage, AE for Vetranio
361-end of 4th century: AE
from 5th century-498AD:nummus, AE
Anyway, thanks for helping!
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: PeterD on May 02, 2005, 11:46:06 am
HT

VLPP is shorthand for "VICTORIAE LAETAE PRINC. PERP." or double-victory type of Constantine. This may just have been a different design for the reduced Follis or a completely new coin. We don't know.

Just about all the names, Follis, Centenionalis etc., were assigned in modern times from names in ancient writings, but we do not know what they were actually called by the people using them. Which makes it difficult to place them into any sort of system of denominations.

As you say, 'FTR' normally refers to the coins from 348, but there were other designs and inscriptions so it is unlikely that these indicated denomination (see below). Whether coinage prior to 348 was de-monetised is difficult to say. Re-calling the coinage en masse would be expensive, disruptive and unpopular, so it may just have been phased out or fitted into the new system.

Doug,

Harl states that Constans minted in the larger denomination in the West with an "A" on it, while Constantius II minted the smaller one in the East with an "N" on it and that they circulated in competition with each other. Of the handful of coins of the FTR period that I have, none have an "A" or an "N". On the other hand the weights vary across the range from 7.4 gms to 2.4gms. The Phoenix coins on the other hand, seem to be fairly consistent. As I said, there are many theories, but I for one am still confused.
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Misanthropus on May 08, 2005, 05:17:01 am
For whatever it is worth, I thought I'd include a scan of the follis which started my interest in these coins.

Harry
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Misanthropus on May 08, 2005, 05:28:10 am
My previous post showed my very first follis, but I thought I'd follow that up with a scan of my "rarest," albeit not my favorite.

Harry
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on May 14, 2005, 07:35:50 pm
Readings -- First Book  Is poetry usefull?

I chanced upon two books in Borders that may or may not put some light on the follis.  For those disinterested in folles, see recommendation at end.

1.  --. "Hesiod, Homeric Hymns, Homerica." [trans. Hugh G. Evelyn-White, ed. Jeffrey Henderson] Loeb Classical Library [LCL 57], Cambridge, Mass., {1914} reprinted 2000.  657 pages. [Greek & English texts.]

For Homeric Hymn No. 2, "To Demeter" [pp. 288-324], the Introduction can be found on pp. xxxv-xxxvi.  It reads: ... THE DIGAMMA IS STILL ACTIVE.

A fuller version from p. xxxvi reads:  "It [Hymn to Demeter] is surely Attic or Eleusinian in origin.  Can we in any way fix its date?  Firstly, it is not later than the beginning of the sixth century,..., for the Dionysiac element was introduced at Eleusis at about that period.  Further, the absence of Triptolmeus and Eumolpus point to considerable antiquity, and the DIGAMMA is still active [caps, mine].  All these considerations point to the seventh century as the probable date of the hymn."

No digammas are printed in the Greek text; however, it will probably not scan [and I did not try this] without proper digamma insertion.  Remember, this poem was sung to large audiences.  Get a chorus to sing "The Messiah" without any "double-you's."  You get:  But -ho may abide; The people that -alked in darkness; I kn'a'- that my Redeemer livith; The Lord gave the -ord; and Oh death, -ere is thy sting.  In the last two, word and -ord[er] do not change meaning too much, but death's sting goes before something in the second.  Dropping an English "double-you" turns a question into a statement.

Praise to the generations of scholars who straightened out this mess and gave us the Hymn in its real meaning.  Pity the poor grad student who gets this as a translation project.

RECOMMENDATION:  No one who collects the Greek or Roman Provincial coinages should be without this book.  The Homeric Hymns will help explain many a perplexing reverse.

Also:  The book contains all [? -- 1914?] fragments and synopses of 10 epic poems that were sung at festivals.  [Only two such things survive -- The Iliad and the Odyssey.] The early versions contain variant stories.  For example, "The Story of Oedipus," poem by Cinaethon [attributed sometimes to Homer] says that Oedipus had no children by Jocasta.  "His sons were borne of Eurgyganeia as the writer of the Epic called the Story of Oedipus clearly shows." [p. 483]  What would Sigmund Freud say to that?

Follibus Fanaticus
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on August 15, 2005, 05:27:15 pm
FORWARD WITH FOLLISES

I am now closing the gap on one follis from each mint for each ruler from c. 294 to 318.  The collection must grow or die, so I grew it, I now collect all follises from all mints of Diocletian as Emperor and as Senior Emperor, Max Herc for both first and second reigns, plus retired issues.  Constantius I as Caesar and as Augustus, plus Divus issues.  Galerius as Caesar, and Augustus, plus Divus issues.

I do not collect too much of Severus II.  Too many are on the market for too high prices.  Present pricing ignores recent finds.  One coin as Caesar, one coin as Augustus – till prices become realistic.

Maxentius as Caesar – none found – and as Augustus, an abundance.  Only one Romulus, a nice Ostia mint, graces my collection.  I shall not go out of my to find one from Rome.

Now we get to a new division: Constantine, big; Constantine, small.  Licinius I, big;, Licinius I, small but not "real" small [not past about 318].  Titles mater little on these coins, but reverses loom large.  I like a full size follis for "big."  For small, I like one that will fit snugly into a U.S. half cent album.

I have only one Licinius II and am not looking for more.  They are mostly "real" small.

Galeria Valeria fills only one place.  I look at them, but they are usually ugly, overpriced coins.  Prices have not fallen in line with the abundance of coin finds.

Follibus Fanaticus
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Heliodromus on August 16, 2005, 09:00:41 am
Follibus,
Have you heard anything specific about recent Severus II finds?

Ben
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on August 16, 2005, 07:43:09 pm
No.  I have heard nothing.

I see many Severus II’s at most shows.  The metal detector has made them common.  I simply will not buy any – especially the Genius types – till the prices fall significantly. I need many other follises, now that I have expanded my collecting goals.

I got a goodie today by mail.  Maximianus Herc., Second Reign, Summer 307, London.  Rev. HERCULI CONSERVATORI.  [PLN] Hercules stands with club, bow and lion skin.  It’s an EXF that’s better than the plate in RIC.  RIC VI 91.

Now, there’s a coin I think is worth a high price.
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Heliodromus on August 16, 2005, 08:34:02 pm
Follibus,
Could you post a picture of your HERCVLI CONSERVATORI? That's certainly a nice find.. issued by Constantine for Maximianus due to the latter having fixed him up with his daughter, Fausta! Was that an auction purchase?

I agree that Severus II's don't seem so rare, but I'm not sure about recent finds. Since Severus II's mints were mostly in Italy (+Carthage), where metal detectiing and selling of hoards is verboten, it seems that there wouldn't be so many recent finds coming to market of his coins as for, say, a more eastern emperor such as Licinius.

Ben
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on August 17, 2005, 12:16:08 am
Ben:

My hobby is coin collecting, not photography.  I own neither a camera that can photograph a coin non any device to get pictures into my computer.  The photo in RIC is almost as nice as my coin.  How is mine better?  With a glass, I saw that Hercules was definitely not Jewish.

No to the auction.  A dealer told me about it at the ANA, and I delivered the quickest check in the West.  He mailed it to me, and I got it yesterday.  It proved to be evern a better coin than he told me about.

I do have a 2d reign Max Herc, Genius type, from London in almost as nice condition.  It is dated to 308.  Genius is draped, code for his demotion from full god to a mascot.

Follibus Fanaticus
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on August 29, 2005, 12:47:53 pm
DUMPSTER DIVING

TO FOLLIBUS F., the pursuit of coins is a hobby to be done in leisure time.  If you are in a rush, go to the coin show with someone else.  Take my latest adventure:

I was patiently perusing a load of outright junk.  The fellow I had driven to the show found himself a ride.  I inspected the junk with my aging eyes, then bought it and dumped it into a plastic sandwich baggie.  I inspected at home at leisure.  One junko looked strange.  I put the big glass on it.  I made out – around a Postumus-like portrait – the letters.....LIAN.  Yes it was an RIC 6 Laelian.  I viewed ERIC for confirmation.

It was the VICTORY ADVANCED LEFT reverse.

It made my day, my week, my month.  Hobbies are leisure activities.  It does not pay to rush.

Follibus Fanaticus
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Rupert on August 29, 2005, 01:17:33 pm
This is absolutely correct. Unfortunately, we don't always have the time. But be sure to post a pic of your Laelianus!!!

Rupert

PS: Congratulations!
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Robert_Brenchley on August 29, 2005, 01:29:26 pm
That's one of the things I love about coins, you never know what's going to turn up next. Her's a follis which arrived the other day; obviously, it still needs some touching up, but I can see it becoming a favourite. Constantine I, Antioch, GENIO AVGVSTI. RIC VI 164, Common. 20mm, struck in 312, obviously by the Genius-man himself, Max Daia.
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Rupert on August 29, 2005, 03:12:23 pm
 ??? Why do you think it needs some touching up? In my eyes it's perfect like it is, I don't see anything that could become better.

Rupert
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Robert_Brenchley on August 29, 2005, 06:15:44 pm
Maybe not. Looking at the scan of the obverse before I shrank it, the chin looked as though it needed further cleaning, but it may just have been the enlargement making it look that way. I won't be doing anything to it for a while at least; I often feel that way about a coin when I first handle it.
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on August 31, 2005, 12:22:39 pm
Again I shook the plastic sandwich baggie with junk goodies, a result of a recent show.  Out came a Constantine I, follis from Rome of 314.  R/F/R*P, C3,  Ric[VII] 19, 3.65 gm.  Laur, dr., cuir., r. Rev.  Sol stands f.  SOLI INV-I-CTO COMITI, R/F, in ex.. R*P.

It's a true portrait.  He has the little beak in his nose.  He is a handsome, impressive man of 28, or 38, or early-40's  -- depending on who you read.  I've got a portrait collector after me for a "real" bust of Constantine.  this may well end up in his collection.  I do deals, and he has something I'd like.

Don't miss my two posts from LEARN FROM YOUR COINS.  I believe that knowledge should be used, not saved.

Follibus Fanaticus
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Heliodromus on August 31, 2005, 12:56:07 pm
Constantine would have been 40 in 314. The date he became augustus, length of rule and age upon death are all recorded in the ancient sources. He was born in 273-274.

Ben
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: curtislclay on August 31, 2005, 01:36:51 pm
    Constantine's year of birth is not certain, but Barnes, New Empire, p. 39, opts for 272 or 273. 
    "Eusebius assumes a date of birth c. 273 when he asserts that Constantine began to reign at the age at which Alexander died, that he lived twice as long as Alexander, and that his life was about twice as long as his reign."  The ancient sources give his age at death as 60, 62, 63, c. 64, or 65. 
     On pp. 40-1 Barnes refutes those modern scholars who, in the face of this solid evidence, have wanted to postpone C's year of birth to between 280 and 288.
     Ben, this book by Barnes is one you must attempt to acquire!  It is essential for establishing the basic historical facts, and, for example, on pp. 93-4 answers your Moneta-L question about late imperial consulships and how they are recorded.
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Heliodromus on August 31, 2005, 05:13:44 pm
Curtis,
Yes, your references to Barnes havn't fallen on deaf ears! I realize that I need to at least get "New Empire", but I'm currently holding out to find a used copy rather than accept having to pay full price for the reprint! I do already have quite a few of the ancient sources themselves in translation, but I'm still in the process of learning what else is available. I've hopefuly got the Theodosian code on it's way, if Amazon UK is able to honor the too-good-to-be-true price they had it listed for.

Ben
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on October 11, 2005, 10:30:37 am
IGNORANCE IS REALLY BLISS

When is ignorance bliss?

NOTA BENE.  I HAVE CREATED A NEW SITE FOR ANTONINIANI ISSUED FROM 253 TO 296.  Due to many fine coins from this era reaching the market, I think it deserves its own site.

LETTERS FROM THIS SITE WILL APPEAR THERE.


Follibis [the Fox] Fanaticus
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Commodo73 on October 11, 2005, 10:55:35 am
Hi Follibus Fanaticus;
can you tell me where can I have a complete roman imperial mintmark list, books, internet, ecc. ??

Thank you
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: curtislclay on October 11, 2005, 11:20:20 am
Follibus,
      RIC 371 has obv. legend with P F like your coin, however the bust is given as "Radiate, draped" or "Radiate, draped, cuirassed".
      Bastien, Monnayage de Lyon, who has actually assembled all the material and illustrated a good portion of it, has 17 spec. just like yours under his no. 92, but again the bust is rad., draped, cuir., seen from front.
      Yours, if really cuirassed only, would apparently be a new variety; I don't find it in Bastien's two supplement volumes either.  Could you please post an image for us to confirm the bust type?
      The dealer's description of the coin was so different from reality, that I wonder whether it just hadn't gotten associated with the wrong ticket?
Regards,
Curtis Clay
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Robert_Brenchley on October 11, 2005, 04:14:52 pm
Hi Follibus Fanaticus;
can you tell me where can I have a complete roman imperial mintmark list, books, internet, ecc. ??

Thank you

There's a good page right here on the site, though you need to remember that many mintmarks also include the officina mark. Click on 'resources' at the top of the page, then 'Roman mints and officina' under the heading 'Roman Coin Attribution Toolkit'.
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Commodo73 on October 16, 2005, 02:46:55 am
Thank you Robert.
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on October 17, 2005, 02:54:14 pm
MOVED TO THE 253 - 296 SITE.
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Robert_Brenchley on October 17, 2005, 03:25:27 pm
You mean this Gallienus? I also have a FORTVNA REDUX with the same exurgual mark. I don't think you can rely on RIC V too far though.
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: curtislclay on October 17, 2005, 04:08:01 pm
Follibus,
     Could you provide us with an image of your new RIC 371 coin, as requested above?  I am very interested to see this possible new bust variant.
Yours,
Curtis Clay
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on October 17, 2005, 04:16:17 pm
MOVED TO 253 - 296 SITE.
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on November 22, 2005, 06:18:47 am
Follises at the November Meeting of the Washington Club

At the Mt. Pleasant meeting of the Washington Ancient Coin Club, Follibus Fanaticus found three notable follies to add to his main collection.

1.  Diocletian.  London.  Retired issue of 307.    Rev. Quies [Retirement] stands l.  QUIES AVGG.  RIC 81.  Condition -- VG at best, but who cares.

The solo appearance of Quies was a new reverse for my collection; I opened a new page in my albums for the retired Diocletian.  I had four coins to add to my new London issue – Trier, Aquileia, Serdica and Alexandria.  The other coins show two goddesses on the reverse, Quies and Providencia Deorum.

2. Constantine I.  London.  Rev.  Constantine rides l, captive under horse’s feet.  RIC 139.

3. Licinius I.  Ostia.  Sol stands facing l.  A dupe of my RIC 85b, but what a dupe.  Better condition – EF+ - on a larger flan.  The Ostia issue for Licinius lasted only a short time.  Why the difference in flan sizes?

The meeting was a good one for follis collectors.

Cheers,

Follibus Fanaticus
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Heliodromus on November 22, 2005, 09:09:21 am
I've got a couple from Ostia on larger flans too, such as my Sol here. The mint had just reduced from a 6.5g (1/48) standard under Maxentius to 4.5g (1/72) under Constantine, so I wonder if perhaps they were simply still used to making larger flans?

Does your Trier "Quies and Providencia Deorum" happen to have KS in field as well as PTR in exergue?

Ben
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on December 01, 2005, 05:29:01 pm
Here is one folis from my collection.Maximinus ll Daia.
What do You think about this coin?
Regards from Sirmium
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on December 28, 2005, 08:25:31 am
 ;)

GROWTH

"What does not grow, dies," says a rule of plant pathology.  That applies to intellectual life, gardens and coin collecting.  Often, collectors begin with a goal, such as an U.S. type set, but then set it aside, when items prove elusive or expensive.  The coins rest in safe deposit or a forgotten niche in the house, The hobby is forgotten.

I have found that collectors who expand goals fare better than those who stick doggedly to one purpose.  Often, the switching point is unexpected.  For example I [Note post of Nov. 22 on Forum for the Follis.] I found an unexpected coin, a single figure of Quies on a retirement coin of Diocletian.  Usually, retirement  coins feature two goddess personifications.  The time had arrived for my collection to grow.

Here are the expansions.

Diocletian.  A coin from each of his 15 mints was the original goal.  Now, I collect to a coin as Augustus from each of the 15 mints and as retired emperor from each mint that issued them.

Maximian Herculus.  Coins from all issuing mints as Augustus, retired emperor, 2d reign and as a god.  That was a large expansion.

Constantius I.  All mints as Caesar, Augustus and as a god.

Galerius.  All mints as Caesar, Augustus and as a god.

Constantine I.  All mints as Caesar, Filius Augustorum and Augustus.  Coins of the deified Constantine fall outside my collecting range.

Severus II.  Dealers still peddle this as a rarity, when in fact it has become common in recent years.  While I do not object to paying for a true rarity [rev.  Mounted emperor spearing kneeling enemy], 30 or so genius reverses at $200 or more per does not fit into my collecting habits.

I have suspended judgment on expansions for the later, smaller, follises.  I do, however, add every fraction – half and third follises –  that I can find to my collection.

This exercise has certainly taught me lessons about rarity.  After looking at several hundred follises of Severus II, I can conclude that his coins are common.  Not so for several coins rated C by RIC.  They just do not show up for sale – either in older lists or in recent findings.  Which are these.  I’ll never tell.

Follibus Fanaticus
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on December 29, 2005, 03:28:00 pm
 :)H Under the Bust of Maximian Herculius

Today, I bought a follis from Trier of Maximian Herculius that has an H under the bust.  I describe the coin thusly:

Laur. r.   IMP MAXIMIANUS P F AVG.  H under bust.  REV.  GENIUS POURS LIBATION.  B/Gamma/TR in ex.  GENIO POPV – L – I ROMANI.

It is a variety of RIC 170b, issued 296/297.

Has anyone ever seen a follis with an H below the bust before?

The standard lettering for the reverse reads GENIO POPV – LI ROMANI.

RIC rates rarity of the listed coin as C2.  170b has no footnotes in RIC.

Cheers,

Follibus Fanaticus
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: *Alex on December 29, 2005, 03:51:20 pm
I have never seen such a follis either and can only assume that the H stands for Herculius. I presume that it is possible that there is a similar type for Diocletian with an I under the bust.  :-\

Alex.
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Rupert on December 29, 2005, 03:52:02 pm
It's 171b; bust type (B) right, laureate, H under bust (description of busts on p. 181). Rarity Common. Strangely, this bust exists for Diocletian too, also with H, not I.

Rupert
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: *Alex on December 29, 2005, 03:57:30 pm
So could the H still stand for Herculius, even though the bust is of Diocletian, because the mint was in the territory governed by Maximianus?

Alex.
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Rupert on December 29, 2005, 04:07:44 pm
Sorry, I don't know the significance either; I would also have expected it like on the coded Antoniniani (with I-O-BI for Diocletian and HP-KOY- :Greek_Lambda: I for Maximian) or on some Carthage folles (with I in field for Dio and Galerius and H for Max and Constantius). Here, the H probably has some other meaning, but which one, I don't know.

Rupert
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Heliodromus on December 29, 2005, 05:45:48 pm
It does seem that Maximianus and/or his procurator monetae was quite fond of his Herculean designation, since Trier (where the "H" bust is used) also issued a Maximianus jugate with Hercules bust for this same type, and Trier and Lyons both issued a Herculean bust (with club & lion skin) for this type as well **. There's no Iovian equivalents from Diocletian's mints.

So, it does seem plausible that the "H" may be a Herculean reference, even if it's a bit odd that it designates the issuer rather than the "house" of the bust it appears under.

Ben

** Numerianus posted an example of this bust type a couple of months ago here:

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=22504.0

Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on January 02, 2006, 08:58:22 am
BILLON DAZA DAZZLES

I ended 2005 with a nice find for my follis collection, a billon follis of Maximinus II, Daza, as Caesar [305-308].  The coin can be described:

Billon.  Follis.  Maximinus II.  Cyzicus.  Dec. 308 – May 310.  Laur. r.  GAL VAL MAXIMINVS NOB C.  Rev. VIRTVTI EXESCITVS[sic].  Mars advances r, nude, transverse spear in r. hand; standard over l. shoulder. Gamma/-/MKV.  RIC 6.  No. 49. var.

Comments.

1. The billon grades somewhat lower than a denarius of Septimus Severus but way above antoniniani of early Valerian.  It resembles a cistophorus rather than a follis.
2. EXERCITVS gets spelled "EXESCITVS."
3. The coin graded EF with only slight traces of wear.
4. It upgrades another Cyzicus 49 that came from the Delta officina.
5. This is only the fourth high-grade billon follis I have laid eves on in 40 years of collecting Roman coins.  I fished one out of a junk box recently.  The other two were. and probably remain, in a collection I saw before 1970 [These two specimens were out of Turkey.].
6. The holder I bought my new coin in reads: MKV=Carthage!  The dealer said it was the rarest follis of Carthage [because it was not in Sear].  Well, it’s rare.

Two questions:

1. Has anyone seen the spelling "EXERSCITVS" on coins or anywhere else?

2.  What can you, or should you, do about knowledge in the marketplace.  [I have now mailed that dealer, and the dealer he got the coin from, a list of follis mintmarks.  A friend of mine calls  Sear "The comic book version," on this subject. [I frankly think that’s a bit harsh.  I have great use for the early –volume Sear Roman books.]

I’ve found "It pays to advertise."  I told everybody at a club meeting about my first billon follis.  The dealer thought he had something like it buried away.  Now I have two billon follises.

Some advise me that I should keep such things deeply secret.  "Now they know there are billon follises, and the prices will skyrocket," they tell me.  I ask:  "How can dealers find me billon follises, if even they don’t even know such items exist?"   And yes, I’ve seen some of the really high prices dealers charge for ratty looking billon coins of the fourth century.  I’ve never bought one.

Cheers.

Follibus Fanaticus
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Heliodromus on January 02, 2006, 11:31:58 am
Hi Follibus,

Even if you're not into photography, you really need to at least get a cheap scanner (which will do quite a servicable job of imageing coins) so that we can see your aquisitions!

We had a thread on billion "AE"'s quite recently:

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=23643.0

It seems a bit of a puzzling phenomena. It's easy to imagine that they could have made short runs in billion as presentation pieces, donatives or somesuch, but the scarcity of these seems to suggest accident rather than a deliberate issue. It might make sense if these were anomolies at the level of individual flans (maybe left in the pickling pit too long, or some other pre-strike silvering process), but if they are really solid 20%+ silver billion (the level of silver needed to appear silver) then it'd have to be the alloy itself. I wonder on what scale alloys were made - were they ever made in small volume?

It would be interesting to do a non-destructive metallurgical analysis on some of these to see what the composition really is.

Ben
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: dougsmit on January 02, 2006, 11:47:36 am
Two questions:

1. Has anyone seen the spelling "EXERSCITVS" on coins or anywhere else?

2.  What can you, or should you, do about knowledge in the marketplace.  [I have now mailed that dealer, and the dealer he got the coin from, a list of follis mintmarks.  A friend of mine calls  Sear "The comic book version," on this subject. [I frankly think that’s a bit harsh.  I have great use for the early –volume Sear Roman books.]
Cheers.

Follibus Fanaticus


1. No but misspellings are pretty common even among mint product dies and there is always the chance that some coins were slightly unofficial.  Recently we have been hearing more about Athenian owls made in places other than Athens and any collector of Postumus or Magnentius (to pick a couple) has to decide where to draw the line between official and 'other'.  This sort of thing went on all of the time.  Before you get too worked up about new discoveries, remember that increased prices requires you to find at least two more people who care.   I taught a half dozen dealers how to recognize certaing things I once sought and saw the prices I had to pay them go up with their belief that they could get more.  Later, when certain things were seen to be more common, they were still able to recognize them but wondered why the few of us that cared stopped buying.  Last I looked, Alexandria mint denarii of Pertinax were easier to find than Rome mint coins.  Oh, well.  

2.  Knowledge in the marketplace is very high regarding some things but there is pretty much total apathy about other subjects.  When it becomes known that some guy is paying extra for something, the ability to spot that item rises.  Rarity has nothing to do with price realized.

2a.  I am not the one who said Sear was the 'comic book version' but what do you expect.  'Everything almost nobody ever wanted to know' about a subject like folles would take up shelf space something on the order of Encyclopedia Britannica.  That makes RIC a 'comic book'.   Perhaps fortunately for the tree population, no one person is likely to write a book like that since the sales prospects would not be attractive.  We might be well advised to worry how we can preserve the corpus of knowledge on such subjects now that the times have passed where books can cover it all (assuming we are all speed readers).  I know a couple numismatic subjects that hit roadblocks when the person studying them died.  We have to be glad that we have comic books and cherish the few more advanced formats that do make it to our hands.  

P.S. Is anyone studying the dot patterns on the ties of the laurel wreaths of the follis period?  Is there anything here worth studying?  
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on January 04, 2006, 01:26:56 pm
In my "Classic Latin Dictionary" the word EXERCITVS has two forms:

ADJETIVE.  exercitus –a-um, adjective, from exerceo [to work thoroughly, fatigue, weary, exercise, harass, trouble, practice, make use of, do a day’s work, employ, practice {as in law or medicine}, conduct, manage] trained, schooled AND [Tacitus] exercita militia [a trained army] or exercitus bello [trained for war].

NOUN.  exercitus - us [a noun of the 4th] from exerceo. A trained body of soldiers, army BUT exercitus navalis, the Navy [Livy].  Caesar uses it to mean [exercitus exponere] to put on a ship.  Caesar, when he uses the word alone, usually means "the infantry."  Poetical use [Virgil] crowd or swarm or, as in exercitus corvorum, a flock of ravens.  The poetic "an army of ravens," I think, is a nice touch.

Follibus Fanaticus
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on January 09, 2006, 02:38:48 am
  Check the discussion, Books and References, for notice of a new life of Hercules.

Follibus Fanaticus

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

I called Borders Books.  "Where’s my life of Hercules?"  "Abba, dabba, do," replied the book orderer.  It was due by late March in a U.S. edition, the British edition having been available for months.  The groves of academe seem to bear late fruit.

Folliibus Fanaticus
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on January 11, 2006, 01:17:00 am
GENIUS OF THE ROMAN PEOPLE: 1.  WHERE?

Writers often begin with the questions who, what when, where and why.  For the Genius of the Roman People, who appears frequently on follises, I ask where?

I consulted "The Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome" by Rodolfo Lanciani, who groups the Genius shrine on the west side of the Forum near the Rostra Vetera.  This is not the speaking platform, partially extant, near the Arch of Septimus Severus.  It was the old Republican platform that partially surrounded the well-like complex in which citizens voted.  Augustus demolished the old platform and filled in the well of voting.

Lanciani begins:  "Three monuments connected with the Rostra [Vetera] deserve notice: The Genius Populi Romani…No trace exists of the first monument.  It consisted of an aedicula or shrine with a golden statue of Genius, the gift of the Emperor Aurelian, before which sacrifices were offered on October 9.  The statue was still standing in its place at the end of the fourth century…The small circular shrine of the Genius …was discovered in 1539.  The pedestal of Genius of the Roman Armies had been found in 1480."

The Aurelian statue was the last in a series of statures that stood in the Genius shrine.  The first was probably bearded, as seen on an 82 BC denarius of the Republic.  The reverse of the coin [Cornelia 54, Syd. 752] shows the attributes of the Genius, terrestrial globe, rudder and scepter.  A denarius of 72 BC shows a later version of the cult statue, clean-shaven and togate.  The toga falls off shoulder, so Genius is bare chested.

The shrine and statue probably perished in the fire of 64 AD, and Nero’s rededication of the shrine rates a coin that shows a standing, clean-shaven, togate but bare-chested Genius pouring a libation and holding a cornucopia.  Some sacrifices in Roman pagan practice required the baring of the chest. [Note:  This may also have been done to minimize blood or wine spatter.] Titus repeats the reverse in bronze.  Both issues are exquisitely engraved.

The Genius appears on scattered coins of later Emperors, such as Hadrian and Antoninus Pius.  A denarius of Pius [RIC 70] proves most interesting.  The Genius faces right, not left, and holds a scepter, not a libation dish.  Most likely, this copies the pre-64 cult statue, copies of which undoubtedly existed.  So far, there is nothing atop Genius’ head.

The imperial denarii probably commemorate dedications or rededications of this popular shrine.  Genius appears on scattered coins of the later Empire, where he becomes an indwelling spirit of armies, as indicated by the close proximity of the Genius of the Roman Army statue at the shrine in the Forum.  Genius of the Roman People had gained a new attribute, a sort of mascot for soldiers. He became a sort of Baltimore Colt or Philadelphia Eagle for the army, but he was still a Genius, a small god.  How do you tell?  He is still clothed.  Major gods usually appear nude.

Diocletian chose the Genius to symbolize renewal in the Empire, just as Trajan Decius had chosen Genius for the same job.  On Diocletian’s coins, however, Genius significantly looses his toga.  He stands there nude, meaning he has been promoted to a major god, just as Diocletian and the other tetrarchs had been promoted to Emperor or Caesar.  He embodied the grit of the new regime.  He appears from 16 mints in vast quantity, pouring a libation.

In the events that follow the death of Constantius I, coins of Constantine I exhibit the old togate Genius.  This is no artistic accident.  The empire is renewed, Genius has done his job, and he is sent back to the ranks of minor gods.  His image hangs on in the East for a time.  Then Genius of the Roman People disappears from coins.

I look forward to comments on Genius One.

Cheers,

Follibus Fanaticus
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on March 21, 2006, 10:54:38 am
MY FIRST RARITY 5

Touring the tables at the March Baltimore Coin Show, I spotted the runt.  It looked like a quarter placed among large cents by mistake.  I asked to view this runt and bought it immediately.  Here’s its description, according to RIC 6 of Thessalonika, Number 48.

THESSALONICA.  Group VI. c. May 311 – May 313.  AES, folles c. 311.  (1)  –/A – S {i.e. 1 to 6}/.SM.TS.  48.  [GALERIUS MAXIMIAN.]   DIVO MAXIMIANO.  [Galerius' bust] R., veiled.  Rev. MEM DIVI M – AXIMIANI.  Eagle surmounting domed shrine with closed doors. [Mint mark] A. [Rarity] R5.  [Notes] A, C (Herc.)  195.  Footnote one.

Footnote one [says] "Citing ‘Musee transylvanien’.  His cut shows officina A; VG. 9, without specifying further, also gives B and Gamma." I take it that the coin is listed in Cohen as a Galerius Maximian No. 6 [possibly a Maximian Herculius No. 6.  I do not own a Cohen.  In fact, I have only seen the volumes once in a fellow collector’s library.  I just flipped through volume one.]

My coin has a gamma officina mark in the right field. -/Gamma/SM.TS.

As a type, the coin descends to Rarity 4.

If you count officina marks, we now have two R5’s, an A officina and a gamma officina.  Let's pass on the B officina for now.  Perhaps my gamma is still only Rarity 4.  After all, Cohen probably saw one somewhere, if he quoted it.

RIC says my coin is R5, so I count it as my first real R5.  I can be persuaded it's only R4.

[Lucky] FOLLIBUS FANATICUS
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: curtislclay on March 21, 2006, 12:01:48 pm
Nice find!
The coin is Cohen, Max. Herc. 395, as RIC says.  Cohen quotes a publication of the Musée transylvanien, so had seen no actual specimen.  He gives it the high price of 50 francs. 
That coin was officina A, and Voetter in his Gerin catalogue also cites officinae B and G.  Fanaticus says his is also G.
Being from Thessalonica, this coin has been coming out in the recent flood from the Balkans.  In my RIC I have written in from recent sales two spec. from off. A, four from B, one from G, and one from D.
Nonetheless, it remains a rare and interesting coin!
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Rupert on March 21, 2006, 12:06:37 pm
As another owner of this type, I'm afraid we have to face the fact that there are some more of these.
My search on Coinarchives (http://www.coinarchives.com/a/results.php?results=100&search=thessaloni+and+ric+and+48+and+maximian) yielded 7 specimens, four of off. B (unfortunately mine is B too), and one each of A,  :Greek_Gamma: and  :Greek_Delta: .

Rupert
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: wolfgang336 on March 21, 2006, 02:21:38 pm
I'm currently in possession of a [very] ruddy example from B officina... not quite as rare as one could hope I suppose!

Evan
Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: *Alex on March 21, 2006, 05:33:56 pm
Seems there are quite a few of us with these. Mine is officina A, and is pictured below.

Alex.

Title: Re: A Forum for the Follis
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on March 31, 2006, 03:20:31 pm
GENIUSPOPULI ROMANI No 2

WHAT?  OR RESPONSE 107 CONTINUED.

What is that object atop Genius’ head on follises?

From the Republic through Antoninus Pius, Genius appears bareheaded.  Then the bust of the Genius appears both radiate and laureate with tube or section of pipe on his head.  Let’s look at relevant coins.

1. Clodius Albinus, as Augustus.  Lugdunum Mint. Rev. GEN.LVG.COS.II.  Genius of Lugdunum towered, stg. fr., holding scepter and cornucopias, at feet, l., eagle.  RIC 23. a,b,c,d.  Plate 2, No.20.  Genius with scepter is a traditional form, as we saw in the first Genius letter.  The headpiece looks made of at least two towers. [Looks like the die engravers saw a pre-Nero cult statue of Genius.]

2. Gallienus, Sole Reign, 259-268.Rome.  GENIO, GENIV, GENIVS AVG.  Genius stg. l., sometimes by altar, holding patera and cornucopia, sometimes to r., ensign.  RIC197, 198.  This is the more usual form of the Genius after Nero.

3. Claudius Gothicus.  Rev. GENIUS AVG.  Genius stg., l., by altar holds patera and cornucopia.  RIC 44,45

4. Claudius Gothicus.  DIVO CLAUDIO.  Rev. GENIUS POPULI.  Genius stg., l., holds patera and cornucopias.  RIC 276.

Now RIC lists the Interregnum of 275 with 3 numbers.  Genius appears twice laureate and once radiate with legend GENIUS P R.  "On the front of crown of the head is an object which has been described as a modius, but is perhaps a turret."  LUGDUNUM WAS WALLED; THE IMPLICATION IS THAT ROME WAS WALLED.

The radiate and the laureate appeared [Lots 1568 and 1569] in good color photos as part of the CNG auction of January 10 – 11, 2006 at the 34th New York International.  They were called double sestertius and sestertius of the time of Gallienus.  On lot 1569, the bricks of the tower are evident.  Modii were not made of bricks.

RIC labels these coins Sestertii and dupondius.  The radiate is pictured and the bricks are evident.  Plate IX, No. 139.  Did Aurilian add a turret crown to his golden statue of Genius to indicate the wall he was building around Rome?

Carausius, 287-293, issued a GENIVS AVG reverse; Genius stands l. holding patera and cornucopias, to r. ensign. RIC 38.  Askew {The Coinage of Roman Britain, No. 229] lists a GENIO BRITTANI, lists a similar type, but no ensign.  No note of any headgear on either coin.

No note of headgear [except from Lugdunum] before the bronze issues attributed by most to after Aureilan.

It’s beginning to look to me that the follises of the Tetrarchy intended to place a turret or mural crown on the head of Genius Populi Romani as part of a representation of Aurilian’s statue in the Forum.  Any comments. [Please read "Reply 107 first.]

Follibus Fanaticus