[HN Gopher] Ancient Roman Coins: How Were They Made?
___________________________________________________________________
Ancient Roman Coins: How Were They Made?
Author : homarp
Score : 56 points
Date : 2022-04-22 13:06 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.thecollector.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.thecollector.com)
| osigurdson wrote:
| Note that the use of metal coins was well established prior to
| the Roman empire. It is generally believed that the Lydians were
| the first to use what would be recognizable as a metal coin.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_coins
| tommica wrote:
| Interesting article, do wonder how they handled forgeries
| thom wrote:
| Something between 24-40% of silver coins found at
| archaeological sites appear to have been counterfeit, for most
| of the period of empire. There certainly were laws against
| counterfeiting, with punishments including being fed to the
| lions. This paper gives a good overview of the laws, and
| archaeological results:
|
| http://www.jaha.org.ro/index.php/JAHA/article/download/142/1...
|
| This has some interesting details about forgers' methodology:
|
| https://www.colat.org.uk/_assets/doc/faking-it-the-evidence-...
| thom wrote:
| Of course it's worth noting that the Roman authorities
| themselves debased the coins at various times throughout
| empire so even the official stuff could be worthless:
|
| https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.51.
| ..
| candiddevmike wrote:
| Britain had a huge problem with this, also known as coin
| clipping:
| https://historyhouse.co.uk/articles/coin_clipping.html
| kop316 wrote:
| My understanding is that the coin's value is derived from it's
| weight and the precious metal it is. So when you get e.g. A
| Denarius, it's value was in the weight of silver it is. The
| coin was a way to folks to know that it was a specific weight,
| and therefore worth a certain amount of currency.
|
| I think a much more common thing was to shave off part of the
| precious metal and keep it (since the metal is worth money).
| chipsa wrote:
| Forged coins tends to sound different (gold and silver ring
| differently when dropped than cheaper metals), and they are
| different hardness/strength than cheaper materials.
|
| If it's still gold/silver, but different design, it's just a
| foreign coin. They weigh it to figure out the worth.
|
| The tricky part is if the coin is clipped. Take a look at dime
| or quarter: notice the fancy edge? That was so if the edge got
| clipped, it's no longer fancy, and you can tell it was clipped
| and weighs less. This is actually an important property of
| silver and formerly silver coins: the different value coins
| change weight in direct proportion to value. So a quarter
| weighs 2.5x as much as a dime.
| lazyier wrote:
| > Interesting article, do wonder how they handled forgeries
|
| (edit: got grams and ounces mixed up)
|
| Monetary denominations are a units of weight. So you weigh
| them. Mass and volume. It is hard to replicate silver and gold
| with cheaper metals.
|
| Back when the USA was on a bimetal standard you didn't
| technically have to have the money minted to have a "dollar of
| gold" or a "dollar of silver". It was same during the Roman
| era, although obviously they didn't use monetary units based on
| the Spanish Doubloon (ie: pieces of eight, or eight reals)
|
| So if you have 26.73 grams of silver you can say "I have a
| dollar in silver". It doesn't matter if it was stamped or not.
|
| Of course, that is worth about $21 nowadays since we no longer
| use money in the absolute technical sense, but currency based
| on the credit of the Federal government and inflation is a
| bitch.
|
| To this day if you weigh "silver coinage" in the USA it more or
| less weighs the same as it did before. Although obviously it is
| not exact anymore since our money is no longer silver based.
| That is if you take 10 dimes, 4 quarters, or two 50 cent pieces
| they all weigh about the same. Of course Nickels and Pennies
| don't work since they are not silver-based.
|
| This is why you see in old cartoons miserly people biting
| coins. They are theoretically checking to make sure it wasn't
| plated lead.
|
| People would shave coins to get little bits and pieces off the
| edges so it wouldn't affect the appearance. Which is why more
| modern coins are stamped with ridges and decorations near the
| edges.
|
| And, of course, as the Roman Empire fell they would debase
| their own currency in order to cover debts. So they would
| reduce the size of the coins or try to mix different metals in
| with it. Effectively the government was counterfeiting their
| own coins.
| uticus wrote:
| Was there a standard way for governments to check? Reminds me
| of Archimedes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes#Archim
| edes'_princip...
| imtringued wrote:
| >Of course, that is worth about $21 nowadays since we no
| longer use money in the absolute technical sense, but
| currency based on the credit of the Federal government and
| inflation is a bitch.
|
| If humans were immortal and their money kept its value, we
| would be enslaved to the rich Romans to this day.
| lazyier wrote:
| What an interesting way to view history.
|
| It has nothing to do with how central state planning is
| utterly destructive to a society or anything like that.
|
| They must of gone all "free market" to fail so
| spectacularly.
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| Unsurprisingly, they didn't.
|
| The romans failed because they got so big and the central
| power so incompetent that they couldn't hold the empire
| anymore.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| Lets be honest - during the middle ages, most Roman coins were
| re-minted. That is melted, combined with base metals and re-
| struck often with curiously confused images. If the smith hadn't
| seen a good image but just the worn coins in circulation for
| centuries, they could have amusing interpretations of what the
| coin 'should' have on it.
|
| Yes this was all counterfeiting and was largely illegal. A
| frequently found tool in middle ages dwellings was counterfeiting
| dies left behind because they were either hidden and forgotten,
| or not safe to travel with and get arrested.
| timmg wrote:
| I've been interested in the idea of collecting ancient coins for
| a while. The thought of holding money in your hand that was used
| to purchase goods a thousand or more years ago is exciting. And
| seeing what is "printed" on these coins can ground you in the
| time they were created.
|
| Unfortunately, my wife has an archeology degree. She says that
| most ancient coins have been "robbed". And that it is unethical
| to buy them. Soooo.... I will probably never collect ancient
| coins :)
| tastyfreeze wrote:
| I am a bit torn on the idea that artifacts shouldn't be moved
| unless by an archeologist. An archeologist can learn a lot
| about a culture from artifacts in place in the strata but not
| nearly as much from moved artifacts. However, in the US
| anything older than 50 years is protected by law as
| "historical" which I find ridiculous. Legally I am not
| permitted to pick up a 1970s soda can found in the woods
| because it is historical trash.
|
| I am of the mind that if I find something cool on the ground I
| am going to take it. If I don't somebody else will. All of the
| archeological sites we have today are what is left after
| millennia of people taking what they found. Life is too short
| to follow all the rules.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| You're misinterpreting the 50-year rule. Any site or
| collection of artifacts older than 50 years is _eligible_ to
| be considered for inclusion in the historical site register
| when documented because it meets one criterion. The other
| criteria are things like historical /cultural significance.
| Please free to clean up all the 20th century trash you find.
| We have lots of it.
|
| Archaeologists don't like documenting pepsi cans either and
| long-winded arguments on this subject can be found in many
| journals.
| debacle wrote:
| Get yourself a metal detector kit and head to the UK.
| boringg wrote:
| But then wouldn't you become a robber if you found something?
| brianwawok wrote:
| Not if you replace what you rob with a loonie
| shagie wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_trove#United_Kingdom
|
| Of old..
|
| > The objects were later presented to the nation by their
| owner, Edith May Pretty, in a 1942 bequest. In March 1973,
| a hoard of about 7,811 Roman coins was found buried in a
| field at Coleby in Lincolnshire. It was made up of
| antoniniani believed to have been minted between AD 253 and
| 281. The Court of Appeal of England and Wales held in the
| 1981 case of Attorney-General of the Duchy of Lancaster v.
| G.E. Overton (Farms) Ltd. that the hoard was not treasure
| trove as the coins did not have a substantial silver
| content. Thus, it belonged to the owner of the field and
| could not be retained by the British Museum.
|
| And more recently...
|
| > To remedy the faults of the old treasure trove regime,
| the Treasure Act 1996 introduced a new scheme which came
| into effect on 24 September 1997. Any treasure found on and
| after that date regardless of the circumstances in which it
| was deposited, even if it was lost or left with no
| intention of recovery, belongs to the Crown, subject to any
| prior interests or rights held by any franchisee of the
| Crown. The Secretary of State (currently meaning the
| Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport) may direct
| that any such treasure be transferred or disposed of, or
| that the Crown's title in it be disclaimed.
|
| As to coins...
|
| > If the object is a coin, it must either be:
|
| > one of at least two coins in the same find which are at
| least 300 years old at that time and are at least 10%
| precious metal by weight; or
|
| > one of at least ten coins in the same find which are at
| least 300 years old at that time.
|
| ---
|
| It appears you can still find coins that can be claimed by
| an individual rather than the Crown, but the definition is
| broader now.
| garbanz0 wrote:
| Interesting, robbed from who?
| timmg wrote:
| Archeological sites.
| michaelmcdonald wrote:
| If these are 1,000 year old coins found in an archeological
| site.... who do the coins "belong" to that were "robbed"?
| bell-cot wrote:
| Depending on local law - the owner of the land, or the
| national antiquities authority, or the owner of the
| mineral rights, or...
|
| "Finders Keepers" is very, very seldom the law, when
| there is anyone with a plausible prior connection to the
| found item(s).
| samizdis wrote:
| Treasure trove laws, as applicable in the UK and US (and
| previously in Roman law), are laid out here:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_trove
| StevePerkins wrote:
| Before the archeologists had a chance to rob them first.
| at_a_remove wrote:
| Not buying the coins won't unrob them. They are still robbed.
| You can't do anything about that. Go ahead and enjoy.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| Buying looted artifacts further supports the market for
| looting. It's unethical regardless.
|
| However it's perfectly possible to find legal historical
| currency. If that's a serious concern, just make sure it
| comes from a reputable source.
| helloworld11 wrote:
| Or, don't let your wife's debatable notions of ethics and
| morality on this subject dictate your choices in personal
| pleasures of life. Those coins exist in large quantities and
| not all were robbed. Even the word robbed is a bit forced since
| it assumes only archaeologists should claim access to any
| archaeological find or control of any objects on it (even
| common ones).
| geokon wrote:
| Anyone know why they had so much trouble making the coins round?
| In fact I feel a lot of ancient metal work looks a bit non-
| symmetric (dare I say sloppy?) - though there doesn't seem to be
| any technical limitation at play
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| Guessing that was due to filing, or a counterfeiter without the
| proper tools. A good roman Denarius should be thick, heavy and
| quite round.
| uticus wrote:
| I would love to hear more on theories with this. From an
| armchair-level of knowledge, I agree: filing would be serious
| indeed if the value was based on weight.
| masklinn wrote:
| > In fact I feel a lot of ancient metal work looks a bit non-
| symmetric (dare I say sloppy?) - though there doesn't seem to
| be any technical limitation at play
|
| Clipping[0] is probably the main reason: at the time, coin face
| value was directly based on their metals content. If you shaved
| and sold off the metal while using the coin for its face value,
| you'd make a profit. That might go on until the coin got so
| obviously debased it wouldn't be accepted anymore. Warding
| against clipping is (supposedly) the reason why modern coins
| are often ridged and inscribed.
|
| [0]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_coin_debasement#Coi...
| sillyquiet wrote:
| This is interesting not only for folks interested in Roman coins,
| but also anybody interested in non-Roman history as well, as many
| cultures mimicked the Roman coinage, except with their own
| chieftains or kings on the head.
|
| https://www.forumancientcoins.com/historia/imitative.htm
| coolhoody wrote:
| Buying an inexpensive Roman coin was on my list. Not as a
| collectable -- but as a meditation / fidget device. Makes you
| think about a lot of things and sort of... gives an interesting
| perspective.
|
| Atm a Nuka Cola bottle cap makes more sense though.
| m_eiman wrote:
| TIL that you can get a Roman coin for as little as about $30.
| kergonath wrote:
| The value of coins might be quite difficult to understand for
| a non-numismatist. There are some Roman coins that are
| actually not that rare (more common than several types from
| the 19th or 20th centuries) that look just like others that
| are several orders of magnitude more expensive.
| m_eiman wrote:
| Do you know what a "cheap" pure gold coin costs, if there
| are such coins?
| kergonath wrote:
| I don't know much about Roman coins, but in general cheap
| coins have the value of the metal they are made of. For
| more modern coins that's actually quite common. There are
| fewer collectors because the coins are so expensive.
|
| From quick look at a seller website you could find some
| gold Roman coins around EUR1000, no idea about how prices
| might vary in the US.
| masklinn wrote:
| > For more modern coins that's actually quite common.
| There are fewer collectors because the coins are so
| expensive.
|
| FWIW modern gold coins (as in after countries went off of
| the gold standard) are pretty much only collectors or
| investment items e.g. the "Eagle" coins stopped being
| circulation coins in 1933, but since 1986 the US mint
| started issuing new "bullion" coins. These are legal
| tender at their face value, but the face value is nowhere
| near actual value (e.g. the 1oz $50 coin is currently
| worth about $2000 as gold prices have skyrocketed in the
| last three years)
| kergonath wrote:
| Indeed. Some mints even stopped putting a face value on
| some coins, like the Royal Mint's Britannias.
|
| Union Latine coins from the 19th century (mostly Swiss,
| Belgian, and French francs) and some British sovereigns
| are quite easy to get at metal value (edit: I mention
| these because they are somewhat old; there are plenty of
| 20th-century coins in the same situation). They are
| convenient because everyone (interested) knows how much
| they weight and therefore how much they are worth, give
| or take some Greek shenanigans.
| vondur wrote:
| Yes. I've collected quite a few over the years. Some coins
| from the later empire are quite affordable due to the
| mismanagement of the fiscal system during the crisis of the
| third century.
| imtringued wrote:
| What you call mismanagement is an inevitability that no
| amount of "proper management" can solve. If the private
| sector runs a surplus, the public sector must run a
| deficit. It's that simple.
|
| I wish money was just a medium of exchange. Nobody needs
| money to be a store of value. It's a fallacy. We have an
| entire banking system that already does that part.
| christkv wrote:
| Is this due to the cutting of the coin with cheaper metals
| ?
| kergonath wrote:
| The usual factors are: it's less glamorous so there are
| fewer collectors; we find more hoards from troubled
| times; debased coins tend to be more common (they would
| not be debased if there was no need for more coins).
| vondur wrote:
| Yes, the coins were heavily debased during this period,
| which was one of the main causes of the collapse of the
| Roman Economy during this period. The Antoninianus coin
| went from around 40% silver to less than 5% silver in a
| thirty period from the 240's until the 270's. A great
| number them were minted in the later time period.
| [deleted]
| blawson wrote:
| Where?
| lastofthemojito wrote:
| https://www.apmex.com/category/29913/roman-empire-
| coins?sort...
| nickthegreek wrote:
| I did just that recently after watching this youtube vid late
| at night. I was enthralled and opened up ebay and bought one
| for around $20.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U77Irq7_qE
| shortstuffsushi wrote:
| Where did you get a Nuka Cola cap, off Etsy or something? Or
| from the limited run of Jones sodas?
| buu700 wrote:
| Related AskHistorians threads that I enjoyed reading:
|
| * "Why was Roman text on coins and other media often so janky and
| misaligned? Today we would see that as unprofessional, especially
| since it was meant to represent the emperor."
| (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/lemt78)
|
| * "When a Roman emperor or European king would mint new coins
| with his portrait (or whatever) on them, did they take the old
| ones of previous rulers out of circulation? Or would citizens be
| faced with a myriad of coins with different faces of different
| people?" (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/tyqvwn)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-22 23:02 UTC)