Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Cyber Monday Sale Everything Discounted 10% Or More!!! Layaway and reserve are not available during the sale. Shop now and save! Welcome Guest. Please login or register. Cyber Monday Sale Everything Discounted 10% Or More!!! Please call us if you have questions 252-646-1958. Shop now and save!

Recent Additions to Forum's Shop


Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
1
Identification Help / Re: Reference for Gallienus
« Last post by Tom Mullally on Today at 03:22:26 pm »
I should be able to take a picture from the book tomorrow at work.

Tom
2
Roman Coins / Re: Constantine I. not in RIC
« Last post by Heliodromus on Today at 02:47:44 pm »
Quote
Perhaps we're overlooking a more obvious explanation. If fractions seem to be disproportionately appearing from Trier, perhaps there was a local economic reason for it. If, for example, poverty in the region was high, lower value coins may have been required in order to transact business or to permit affordable donations to temples.

Zschucke mentions that Strauss "Les monnaies divisionnaires de Treves" had a similar theory that Trier needed small change due to not having issued port-reform radiates, although I don't think the PRR statement is even true. Anyways, Zschuke disagrees, not least because as Strauss acknowledges these appear to have been issued only on special occasions.

Quote
To Ben's point about Constantine throwing the coins to the plebs, I note that if the dating of this coin is correct at 320 ce, Bruun seems to think Constantine was wandering around on the other side of the empire at the time (Serdica). I suppose one of his kids could have been doing the throwing though... Wasn't Crispus set up in Trier around this time?

Yes, it could have been Crispus c.321. It's notable that there's nothing that appears datable after 321 AD (e.g for Constantine's 20th vows in 326 AD), maybe due to Crispus being dead and Constantine having moved east.
3
The Members' Gallery / Re: First entry in my humble gallery
« Last post by Ron C2 on Today at 02:32:51 pm »
Great coin, and I hope not your last gallery entry!
4
Roman Coins / Re: Constantine I. not in RIC
« Last post by wolfgang336 on Today at 01:56:20 pm »
Perhaps we're overlooking a more obvious explanation. If fractions seem to be disproportionately appearing from Trier, perhaps there was a local economic reason for it. If, for example, poverty in the region was high, lower value coins may have been required in order to transact business or to permit affordable donations to temples.

To Ben's point about Constantine throwing the coins to the plebs, I note that if the dating of this coin is correct at 320 ce, Bruun seems to think Constantine was wandering around on the other side of the empire at the time (Serdica). I suppose one of his kids could have been doing the throwing though... Wasn't Crispus set up in Trier around this time?
5
Roman Coins / Re: Constantine I. not in RIC
« Last post by Heliodromus on Today at 01:28:05 pm »
Quote
But not drastically heavier.

Yes, I was just joking, but it does seem that special occasion use may have called for special coins (fractions), even if public safety wasn't the reason!  ;D

The only earlier fraction from Constantinpole is the extremely rare anepigraphic Helena type.
6
Identification Help / Re: id help needed
« Last post by Csaba K on Today at 12:25:02 pm »
thanks
7
Identification Help / Re: id help needed
« Last post by shanxi on Today at 12:17:39 pm »
Gratian,  D N GRATIANVS P F AVG / REPARATIO REIPVB, emperor standing facing, head left, raising kneeling female and holding Victory on globe

with the S in the field similar to this one, but I can't read the mint mark

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=334859
8
Ancient Coin Forum / Re: Hartwig (Santamaria 1910) Plates
« Last post by STEVEN M1 on Today at 12:17:24 pm »
Got it. Thank you Kevin!

Steve

9
Identification Help / id help needed
« Last post by Csaba K on Today at 11:56:03 am »
Dear Members,

please help me to identify this coin
diameter is about 2 cm

thanks
10
Lucilla Denarius Strange Epigraphy and Reverse Style

Lucilla, Augusta c. 164 - 182 A.D., Wife of Lucius Verus
Silver Denarius
RIC III 771, RSC II 38, BMCRE IV 313, Szaivert MIR 18 8, SRCV II 5485
Rome mint, 166 - 169 A.D., 3.224g, 18.7mm, 0 die axis
LVCILLAE AVG ANTONINI AVG F, draped bust right, hair elaborately waived and knotted in chignon low at back
IVNONI LVCINAE, Juno Lucina standing facing, veiled head left, extending right hand, swaddled infant in left hand and arm

I have found similar odd epigraphy on other Lucilla denarii. I do believe it is genuine, but I am hoping for corroborating opinions from others familiar with this oddity.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
All coins are guaranteed for eternity