Classical Numismatics Discussion Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 25, 2014, 12:45:25 am
Search Calendar Login Register

Recent Additions to Forum's Shop


FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board  |  Resources  |  Identification Help (Moderators: Steve Minnoch, Varangian, casata137ec)  |  Topic: "DN CONSTANTINI MAX AUG" Vot Piece 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: "DN CONSTANTINI MAX AUG" Vot Piece  (Read 764 times)
NumisMatty
Consul
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 143


« on: July 29, 2009, 05:28:07 am »

Seems to be a Constantine I coin but what value did it have?



Logged

Bamba123
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 711


« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2009, 10:48:17 am »

Ticinum
RIC VII 167  Constantine I AE3 Follis. 322-325 AD. CONSTANTINVS AVG, laureate head right / D N CONSTANTINI MAX AVG, laurel wreath enclosing VOT XX and crescent below, PT in ex

Value either what you want for it or what someone will pay for it
Jim
Logged

If all the world's a stage, I want to operate the trap door

http://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=1844
areich
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9650



WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 29, 2009, 12:12:06 pm »

'Value' depends on the circumstances. At a coin show I would not pay more than $5-$7,
though you might find them on offer for 3-4 times that price. On Ebay it might fetch anything from $1 to $15,
but the latter is very unlikely. Since a professional coin dealer must charge a certain minimum amount for taking pictures and attribution if he's offering it online he will offer it for more than that if he bothers with these coins at all.
This minimum amount is the reason many dealers will only sell this kind of coin in a lot if at all.

If you happen to find a collector that's looking for this particular coin it's a completely different story.
Logged

Gavignano
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1687

"I check Forvm daily, and take a multivitamin."


« Reply #3 on: July 29, 2009, 04:13:16 pm »

Coins from Ticinium are scarce, relatviely speaking. In its favor:
its from Ticinium (for those who care about such). it has little wear. its a strong strike. it has a silver wash.
on the negative - it looks like it could be further cleaned. But what will we find? More corrosion? For sure, at least on the obverse rim. It is a harder coin to clean, with the wash.
Biggest negative - corrosion on the face.
I, like Andreas, would not wish to pay more than 5-10 USD for it. Knockout reverse strike though!
Joe
Logged

"May all your campgates be Ticinums"
NumisMatty
Consul
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 143


« Reply #4 on: July 29, 2009, 07:53:40 pm »

Ticinum
RIC VII 167  Constantine I AE3 Follis. 322-325 AD. CONSTANTINVS AVG, laureate head right / D N CONSTANTINI MAX AVG, laurel wreath enclosing VOT XX and crescent below, PT in ex

Value either what you want for it or what someone will pay for it
Jim

So you don't know what it was worth in Roman times?  Cheesy
Logged

wandigeaux (1940 - 2010)
Deceased Member
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 968



« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2009, 11:25:16 pm »

Yes, that's what I thought you were asking.  It's possible to make more or less educated guesses, but that's about it.  The circumstances of the marketplace were just too different; food was much cheaper than today, manufactured goods much, much more expensive.  Tying the value of this coin in the marketplace to some sum in modern currency is nothing more than a game.   Others may be more optimistic.  Cheers, George Spradling
Logged

Hwaet!
"The pump don't work 'cuz the Vandals took the handle" - St. Augustine
GET THE HELL OFF MY LAWN!!
(1940 - 2010)
areich
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9650



WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 29, 2009, 11:30:57 pm »

I'm so used to the other kind of value question but with hindsight it is clear I missed the topic.
Logged

NumisMatty
Consul
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 143


« Reply #7 on: July 30, 2009, 12:27:35 am »

I'm so used to the other kind of value question but with hindsight it is clear I missed the topic.

No bother - what is it?!!
Logged

berserkrro
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 457


« Reply #8 on: July 30, 2009, 01:02:33 am »

I think such bronze piece was 25 d.c. (common denarii). To see what you may have been able to buy with it, take a look at "Edict of maximum prices" - 301 A.D., this is just to form a general view because this document became obsolete very fast (Mr. Victor Clark's informative site):
http://www.constantinethegreatcoins.com/edict/
 
Logged
NumisMatty
Consul
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 143


« Reply #9 on: July 30, 2009, 05:05:26 am »

I think it such bronze piece was 25 d.c. (common denarii). To see what you may have been able to buy with it, take a look of Edict of maximum prices - 301 A.D., this is just to form a general view because this document became obsolete very fast (Mr. Victor Clark's informative site):
http://www.constantinethegreatcoins.com/edict/
 

Thanks for the reply - I was just trying to find out what value it had in terms of the name it would be given i.e. Denarius, As, Dupondius etc.. I am still trying to learn the values. Isn't it annoying the Romans never wrote the values onto their coins!.. Great link too thx..
Logged

areich
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9650



WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 30, 2009, 05:19:11 am »

I find the lack of dates, values or denominations are a good thing that sets ancient coin collecting off from collecting modern coins.
Logged

NumisMatty
Consul
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 143


« Reply #11 on: July 30, 2009, 05:25:39 am »

It is, but it takes so much time finding such information out, and I'm working at the same time Wink
Logged

berserkrro
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 457


« Reply #12 on: July 30, 2009, 05:48:42 am »

The coin is an AE3 (a term that describes it's dimesion class), but nobody knows more about the real name of this kind of coins. This was small change and ancient writings are not focused on amounts formed in such coins. That's why the real name is still unknown. And I agree with areich, this makes collecting them more interesting and very confusing for beginners Smiley
Logged
Sri_Sahi
Guest
« Reply #13 on: July 30, 2009, 03:13:34 pm »

A letter of AD 321 makes reference to a revaluation of the coinage by Licinius in areas under his control to "the half of a nummus". Some of Licinius' eastern mints at this time began marking the coins "12 1/2" for the value in denarii communes or "denarii of account" (the 'denarius of account' was not an actual coin, simply the unit in which accounts were reckoned). Thus the full value AE3 coin such as this one struck c. 322/23 from one of Constantine's western mints must have been known as a nummus with a value of 25 denarii communes.

For the full citation and other relevant info, see this very useful page contributed by another forvm member in reference to a similar thread: http://www.tulane.edu/~august/handouts/601ccdoc.htm

Logged
wandigeaux (1940 - 2010)
Deceased Member
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 968



« Reply #14 on: July 30, 2009, 03:51:14 pm »

Is NumisMatty asking about the denomination of this coin, or the value (buying power)?  I agree that 25 dc seems right (as Harl maintains), but what the heck is that in terms of value (probably variable in relation to the price of copper v. gold or silver)?  It is not certain that this kind of coin was ever called a "follis," at least until the Vandal/Gothic denominations of 40 (42) nummi and the later Anastasian coinage reform.  Some would disagree.  George S.
Logged

Hwaet!
"The pump don't work 'cuz the Vandals took the handle" - St. Augustine
GET THE HELL OFF MY LAWN!!
(1940 - 2010)
dougsmit
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



WWW
« Reply #15 on: July 30, 2009, 05:21:55 pm »

With reluctance I posted a page on the question years ago.  It was mostly based on Harl. 
http://dougsmith.ancients.info/worth.html
The problem is that inflation was bad at the time and prices were not the same everywhere (just like today, bread costs more in London than it does in Iowa).  Records are spotty so we don't have the full picture.  Around 320 AD we have a record of bread selling at Antioch for 2 nummi (a nummus then being the reduced AE3 version like this coin). The same record places meat at 4 to 8 nummi a pound and wine at 6 to 14 nummi a sextarius (about a pint) depending on quality. Oddly we could see a parallel here to modern prices if we call a nummus about a dollar.  Obviously some things today are relatively cheaper and others relatively more so you will never have an 'exchange rate'.   

When I was a new collector, people asked the value of certain Roman coins in US$.  Today (almost 50 years later) the US$ buying power is 1/10 what it was.  The Roman nummus (basic coin of the 4th century) went through the same fall a lot faster during some periods.  We have no idea what a dollar will buy in another 50 years but we can only hope we don't follow the example of Rome

For the fun of it, compare the buying value of a Roman coin to its collectible value now.  In Rome, we need to ignore rarities in today's coin market but a common denarius of the early Empire was a day's pay for a low ranking soldier.  Today an average (nothing special) denarius might sell for about a day's pay at minimum wage (or slightly more or less). 
Logged

Congius
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1720



« Reply #16 on: July 30, 2009, 05:43:32 pm »

Doug,
Do those references to "nummi" based prices in 320 and 327 come from Harl? How secure are those dates? I wonder if nummus necessarily refers to a specific denomination or maybe just (bronze) "coin", since there's a possible retariffing/renaming of the bronze coinage that took place c.318-319 (certainly an increase in silver content of a few percent), and I believe there's other refererences to "nummus" referring to the earlier, pre-318 coinage.

Ben
Logged
Sri_Sahi
Guest
« Reply #17 on: July 30, 2009, 07:28:09 pm »

Nummus was clearly an official term at the earlier date as evidenced by this monetary edict of 1 Sept, AD 301:

 ". . . that the nummus argenteus be valued at 100 denarii communes and the nummus be strengthened with the force of 25 . Furthermore, that it be communicated that you know that our fiscus is subject to the observance of this law, namely from the Kalends of September in the consulship of Titianus and Nepotianus".

Source: From Aphrodisias, Caria. See K. Erim et al., JRS 61 (1971), 173, frag. (b) = M. Crawford, ANRW II. 2 (Berlin, 1975), 578-579, with revisions offered by H. Jahn, JNG 25 (1975), 98, E. Ruschenbusch, ZPE 26 (1977), 22, and K. W. Harl, Phoenix 39 (1985), 264-65.

While many numismatists find the reform of 318 a convenient break, calling the earlier Tetrarchic coins folles and the post-reform coins nummi, the term nummus seems to have been the one a Roman would have used throughout the period, probably up to the introduction of the AE2 by Constantius II in AD 346.

A surviving edict of 349 (Codex Theodosianus 21.6) bans the cuppelation of silver from a coin called maiorina, while an edict of AD 356 (C. Th. 9.23) demonetizes  the maiorina along with another called centenionalis.
Logged
Congius
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1720



« Reply #18 on: July 30, 2009, 08:43:44 pm »

Thanks Sri_Sahi for that quote from the monetary edict. I'd forgotten about the "argenteus" being referred to as the "nummus argenteus", which make me again question what these terms mean. Are "nummus argenteus" and "nummus" denominational names or more generically just "silver coin" and "[base] coin"?

I think there's reason to believe that the base coin was retariffed c.318-319 (not least because why else would they increase the silver content?), although it's not clear if the name of it changed. Someone (Bruun?) has suggested that the "centenionalis" may in fact refer to this reformed coin (presumably, per the name, now tariffed at 100 DC). From what I recall we don't see pre and post 318-319 reform coinage mixed in hoards, but I don't know if that necessarily means the earlier coin was demonetized right away.

So, what does "nummus" in 320, or 327 in the eastern empire refer to? As an additional factor note that Licinius's entirely base 12.5 DC coin ("half nummus", or retarriffed nummus?) was introduced c.321, and may or may not have been demonetized by Constantne after Licinius's death in 324.

Ben
Logged
berserkrro
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 457


« Reply #19 on: July 31, 2009, 12:13:34 am »

So, actually for the coin in question we don't know the original name, we can just suppose. Of course we have nummus but earlier and for other coins. As an example (related to an ancient writing) in Historia Augusta (supposed to be written in the time of Constantinus or later) we can find different doubtful denominations (Aurelian chapter):
"two aurei of Antoninus, fifty silver minutuli of Philip, and one hundred denarii of bronze"
Denarii of bronze (aeris denarios) are also contested but I wonder if this reference couldn't point to what we call today "limes denarii". Anyway Historia Augusta is not fully accepted as a reliable source, and the big problem related to late empire denomitations still exist.
Logged
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board  |  Resources  |  Identification Help (Moderators: Steve Minnoch, Varangian, casata137ec)  |  Topic: "DN CONSTANTINI MAX AUG" Vot Piece « previous next »
Jump to:  

Recent Price Reductions in Forum's Shop


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 1.508 seconds with 63 queries.