SICILY SYRACUSE Bronze coin,a different denomination?

[XLi]

I see the coin on the net,everything looks common except the weight.
It's 5.5g in weight and 21mm in diameter.As usual,perhaps it should be 8g to 11g.
Is it just a reduced weight issue or a different denomination?
Thank you for reply!

[stevex6]

Hi, XLi

Ummm, I have this example for ya ... does this help?

SICILY, SYRACUSE - PYRRHUS AE
278-276 B.C.
24 mm
10.6 gm
Obverse: Head of Heracles left, wearing lion skin
Reverse: CYPA-KOCIWN; Athena Promachos in archaic dress, walking right, holding shield and thunderbolt

[stevex6]

Hmmm? ... sorry, once I read your OP-post a wee bit closer, I discovered that you're wondering about the "weight" of your cool coin ( that is a bit of a wonder, eh?)

 


I took a look on CNG and discovered that all of their examples were all in the 10 grams range as well ...

=> Ummm, maybe you've got yourself a cool fourree?

[XLi]

I have find more information about this coin.

[XLi]

And I have find some light examples on www.acsearch.info,most of them are 8g-11g in weight,and perhaps 10 example between 7g~8g.

And this item only 4g.

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=2657495

[Meepzorp]

Hi XLi,

I have a similar coin (scroll down, last coin):

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/meepzorp/gs_sicl_syra_pt04.htm

My example is 11g.

It is unusual to have such a variation in weight. But the acsearch example is in the 4-5g weight range.

Meepzorp

[Meepzorp]

...maybe you've got yourself a cool fourree?

Hi SP,

How is that possible? In antiquity, this issue was a bronze coin.

Meepzorp

[stevex6]

Ahahaha, ummm, okay you caught me ... I was humming on morphine at the time (all the time)

I was merely showing my example and then saw that dude's OP-example was a bit shy on weight

Then, I thought to myself ...

[djmacdo]

Generally, the worth of the metal in bronze coins was only a fraction of the nominal value of the coin, so Greek bronze coins were not closely regulated in weight.  Still, such a wide variations as we see here are unusual.  Perhaps the situation at the time of this issue accounts for this.  These coins were struck during Pyrrhus' wars in Sicily, so perhaps the mint was even less precise than usual.

[PtolemAE]

Generally, the worth of the metal in bronze coins was only a fraction of the nominal value of the coin, so Greek bronze coins were not closely regulated in weight.  Still, such a wide variations as we see here are unusual.  Perhaps the situation at the time of this issue accounts for this.  These coins were struck during Pyrrhus' wars in Sicily, so perhaps the mint was even less precise than usual.

Among a mix of 97 specimens of both variations (inscription on obverse and reverse) of this Pyrrhos type, the range of weights in my database is about 7.5 to about 12.5 grams.  This is not unusual for contemporary bronze coins, e.g. of Ptolemaic types.  There is a persuasive shape to the weight distribution curve indicating a single peak at the mean weight of about 10.2 grams.  It's possible a few are overstrikes on small undertypes or were struck on flans intended for lower-value coins ('mint error' .

The spread of individual bronze coin weights has been studied in great detail for Ptolemaic coins (and some other Greek bronzes) of the 3rd C. BC and the results show that the amount of metal used to make bronze coins was indeed meaningful.   The hypothesis of 'fiduciary' bronze coinage was rejected in the face of overwhelming quantitative evidence.  Ptolemaic Sicilian bronzes and other Sicilian bronzes (e.g. Hieron 'horseman' types) also shared a common weight standard, to unexpectedly high precision, and it is plausible that relationship (ca. 265 BC) may have preceded them, including the period during which Pyrrhos minted these bronze coins (about 10-12 years earlier).  The 'spread' of these 'Athena' Pyrrhos bronzes is quite similar to some other bronze types of their time.   There are others for which a clear relationship of weight-to-value is not very persuasive, but these Pyrrhos types do seem to adhere to a weight standard that would argue against their having had purely 'fiduciary' value.  The people who made some Greek bronze coins were smarter than we have given them credit.

PtolemAE

[djmacdo]

The Ptolemaic bronzes are certainly an exception to the general rule that Greek bronzes are not well adjusted to weight., and perhaps these Pyrrhic bronzes too, but at a weight range of about 7.5 to 12.5 one can certainly say they were not very exactly regulated, certainly not like silver or gold issues generally were.  There such a range would be unusual.  I wonder if the weights can be equated with style and/or variety.  I have casually observed that in this series those of the finest style seem to be heaviest and those of lesser style lighter, but that is only a casual impression.

[PtolemAE]

The Ptolemaic bronzes are certainly an exception to the general rule that Greek bronzes are not well adjusted to weight., and perhaps these Pyrrhic bronzes too, but at a weight range of about 7.5 to 12.5 one can certainly say they were not very exactly regulated, certainly not like silver or gold issues generally were.  There such a range would be unusual.  I wonder if the weights can be equated with style and/or variety.  I have casually observed that in this series those of the finest style seem to be heaviest and those of lesser style lighter, but that is only a casual impression.

Not to get too argumentative here, but it's probably a good place to spread the word about reality of bronze coinage weight standards.  No one was more surprised to see how precisely the Egyptian 3rd C. mean-weight standards emerged in a large quantitative study - after hiding in plain sight for decades.  It may appear, if perhaps they are the first Hellenistic bronzes for which a such a study has been published, that Ptolemaic bronze are 'different' but there is no a priori reason to believe that only the Egyptians knew how to make weight/denomination relationships meaningful for bronze coins.  Bronze coins seem to be simply 'assumed' to be fiduciary in nature because they vary in weight more than silver or gold coins. The assumption is not justified; weight data for some other types seem to behave like the Egyptian 3rd C. bronzes.  That a particular weight standard is 'average' for bronze coins (represents a mean, 'al marco', vs. 'per coin, al pezzo' for silver or gold), simply reveals how it was executed in minting practices.  The bronze coins (discussed here) clearly were not individually adjusted to as narrow weight ranges as silver or gold, but that does not imply they lack a weight standard.  The question of weight standard for the particular Pyrrhos type here is not yet decided, but for a number of other Sicilian and Seleukid bronzes it's as clear as it is for Ptolemaic bronzes.

PtolemAE

[djmacdo]

I think we agree in all but terminology.  Certainly, there were weight standards for bronze coinage, and certainly bronze had some real metallic worth, but where there is information about the value of bronze as raw metal, it is often much less than the nominal value of bronze coins.  There are, of course, exceptions--particularly your massive Ptolemaic bronzes.  The situation in the Bosporus in the fourth through first century B.C. is interesting.  So long as the Bosporos issued gold and the government maintained the exchange rate between gold and bronze coins, the bronze coinage maintained stable weight, but when the issue of gold ceased and no set exchange rate between bronze and a precious metal was maintained, things fell apart.  The government issued many bronze coins, but the nominal value could not be maintained and fell toward the metal value.  The government began issuing increasingly smaller bronzes, attempting to maintain a nominal value in excess of the metal value, while the citizens removed the higher weigh bronze coins from circulation when the exchange value of the larger coins fell below the metal value.  Over the course of time bronze coins bearing the same types gradually declined from a diameter of ca. 30 mm to pitiful mites of ca. 10 mm.

[PtolemAE]

I think we agree in all but terminology.  Certainly, there were weight standards for bronze coinage, and certainly bronze had some real metallic worth, but where there is information about the value of bronze as raw metal, it is often much less than the nominal value of bronze coins.  There are, of course, exceptions--particularly your massive Ptolemaic bronzes.  The situation in the Bosporus in the fourth through first century B.C. is interesting.  So long as the Bosporos issued gold and the government maintained the exchange rate between gold and bronze coins, the bronze coinage maintained stable weight, but when the issue of gold ceased and no set exchange rate between bronze and a precious metal was maintained, things fell apart.  The government issued many bronze coins, but the nominal value could not be maintained and fell toward the metal value.  The government began issuing increasingly smaller bronzes, attempting to maintain a nominal value in excess of the metal value, while the citizens removed the higher weigh bronze coins from circulation when the exchange value of the larger coins fell below the metal value.  Over the course of time bronze coins bearing the same types gradually declined from a diameter of ca. 30 mm to pitiful mites of ca. 10 mm.

A coherent bronze coinage weight standard long preceded the introduction of very large bronze coins in Egypt.  In the case of Ptolemaic coinage the size:value ratio of the bronze coins was greatly increased about 265 BC (by 50%, bronze was devalued in relation to silver by 1/3) and bronze coinage replaced silver coinage inside Egypt for decades.  Bosporus policies on bronze coins apparently worked differently, but the intrinsic bronze coinage with well-defined weight standards obtained in a number of places in Hellenistic times.  It would be interesting to know if Bosporan bronzes were issued in multiple denominations at the same time.  The intrinsic bronze coinage in Egypt and some other places certainly doesn't exclude fiduciary bronze coinages elsewhere (e.g. bronze coins of nearly equal size/weight and differently marked for their values).  A substantial weight 'spread' in a particular coin type (the 'al marco' quality of the coinage) is not, however, sufficient evidence that that coin type is 'fiduciary' bronze.  Absent other information, it also isn't clear that reduction in size of a particular type/denomination coin, per se, implies a reduction in its value (buying power).  

PtolemAE

[djmacdo]

Initially, Bosporos bronzes were issued in a whole array of denominations, but when the decline in weight set in, the smaller denominations were eliminated and the large nominal decline to miserable tiny bits of bronze.  Types of these small bronzes were often changed and evidently the old types were declared no longer valid.  They were overstruck and reissued with new types.

[PtolemAE]

Initially, Bosporos bronzes were issued in a whole array of denominations, but when the decline in weight set in, the smaller denominations were eliminated and the large nominal decline to miserable tiny bits of bronze.  Types of these small bronzes were often changed and evidently the old types were declared no longer valid.  They were overstruck and reissued with new types.

Seems that at one point the bronze coins there were intrinsically valued and later were not.  A change in bronze value took place over time in Egypt, too.  The early Bosporan bronze denominations and their metrology would be important data related to these questions.

PtolemAE