Options
Marcus Aurelius denarius
MKUltra24
Posts: 652 ✭✭✭✭
I accidentally posted this on the Buy, Sell, Trade forum but I wanted to share this Marcus Aurelius denarius that I picked up today.
Now I have denarii of 4 of the 5 “Good Emperors” and just need Nerva to complete the set and then I can focus on getting the Twelve Caesars mentioned by Suetonius.
What do you guys think?
7
Comments
Very nice!
My YouTube Channel
Well centered and struck. Good luck finding a nice Nerva to complete your short set.
The twelve Caesars are going to set you back in the wallet for nice examples.
Thanks! I think I’ll settle for lower graded examples of the more expensive examples.
Caligula’s denarii cost a fortune!
Thanks!! ^_^
I paid a bit extra for this one because of the condition and strike.
That's a beautiful denarius
Thanks so much!
It was a tough buy for me because it was so much more expensive than my other denarii but I’m glad I got a good quality coin.
Someone once told me to always buy the best condition coin I can afford at the time.
Paying up for better quality is always the way to go.
My YouTube Channel
Just some further info on your coin, that surprisingly isn't mentioned on the slab: it is in the minority of Roman coins, in having a precise date on it. "TRP XXIII" dates the coin to "mostly AD 169" (more precisely, from Dec 168 to Dec 169).
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD.
Oh wow thanks for the extra information!
So basically I know it was minted several years after co-Emperor Lucius Verus had died and during the middle of the Antonine Plague.
What’s really interesting is according to Wikipedia his denarius in 168 should’ve only weighed around 2.67 grams but mine weighs 3.37 which is nearly 25% larger than it should’ve been.
Now I know that the minting techniques weren’t very precise but it seems like mine is outside the margin of error.
If it was like 2.97 grams I would figure it’s just margin of error difference but I’m curious what happened with mine being so overweight compared to the standard denarius for the time.
Although I see now it says “actual silver weight” which I think means the amount of pure silver rather than the coin’s weight. Like if I took the coin to a refinery and had it melted down and refined to .999 fine.
3.37g x 0.82 (82%) = 2.76 grams of fine silver. That sounds about right assuming minimal wear and tear.
But am I understanding correctly?
If so I think it’s pretty cool considering that these heavier and higher purity denarii were only made for a very short period of 2 years according to the Wikipedia article below before reverting back to 2.57 grams of 79% pure.
Yes, your understanding (and your maths) is correct.
The denarius shows an excellent demonastration of the effect of inflation on a long-lasting coinage type. It began as a pure-as-ancient-technology-could-get silver coin, and was gradually debased, until then end in the late 200s AD when it was a small copper coin with barely a trace of silver in it.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD.
Ahh ok I wasn’t sure if my math was right so I appreciate your confirmation.
That’s interesting because I have this Septimius Severus denarius coming tommorow and it looks like relatively pure silver. Definitely looks like at least 50% but I’m not sure if it’s like a silver wash on the surface with mostly copper in the core?
It would be interesting to cut it open to study and learn in the name of science & history but I just don’t have the heart to ruin such an old coin. Especially after paying $100 for it since it would be like cutting up a $100 bill.
But I’m curious if they’ve ever found coins of higher purity than they’re supposed to be.
Like a nearly pure silver denarius from a time when historians tell us they were low purity.
The silver was still good enough to "look silvery" right up to the reign of Valerian, though it was down to about 40% by this time. The shock of Valerian's defeat and capture by the Sassanians caused financial collapse throughout the Empire, draining the treasury of silver and resulting in the fineness of Valerian's successors rapidly dropping below 10%.
If you ever found an ancient Roman silver coin that you had chemically tested and discovered it was much higher in fineness than it "should" be for that time period, my first assumption would be that it was a modern fake. The Roman mint may have gotten sloppy with quality control on a few occasions, but it rarely allowed above-standard coinage to escape. Putting extra silver in a coin would mean somebody was giving away the emperor's silver, for free. That's the kind of thing you'd lose your job and/or life over.
And on the subject of analytical testing: slicing the coin open to find out what's inside it isn't necessary any more. There's all kinds of ways these days to analyse an ancient artifact, without destroying it. X-ray fluorescence (XRF) and MRI scans are fairly standard procedures in archaeology these days.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD.
I never thought about the fact that it meant someone was giving away the Emperors silver.
What I meant to ask though was like maybe historians were wrong about the purity of the coin at the time.
I dont think they’ve ever found actual documentation from the time stating the specifics of coins have they?
Like for 2 years Marcus Aurelius raised the purity from 79% to 83% and the weight from 2.67 grams to 2.77 grams but if you looked at a hoard of Marcus Aurelius denarii and there were none from those 2 years it would give the impression that they were all 2.67 grams of 79% purity even though that wasn’t the case.
Technically the minters weren’t giving away any silver because they were authorized to raise the weight & purity by Marcus Aurelius himself but the coins from that period would be heavier and more pure than all the others from his reign.
Most of the evidence regarding official coinage standards at different time periods comes from the coins themselves. One coin that's much higher quality than other similar coins is an inexplicable abberation. Ten, or a hundred, such coins is evidence of an official policy shift.
Occasionally , the coins themselves provide direct evidence of policy shifts in intended standards. After Aurelian's reforms, coins began to be marked with the numerals "XXI". Chemical analysis of these XXI coins reveals they are quite consistently made of about 4% silver. Thus, it can be concluded that "XXI" is an advertisement of the fineness: 20 parts copper to 1 part silver.
It also speaks greatly about the state of the Empire's finances at the time, when a coin of only 4% silver was considered something to boast about.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD.
So this XXIII Marcus Aurelius denarius is less than 4% silver??
No, wrong era. As I said earlier, "TRP XXIII" is the year - the 23rd Year of the emperor being granted Tribunician Power. The numerals on the coins of Aurelian and contemporaries have no other context.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD.
Oops sorry I must’ve missed that part.
It’s pretty confusing reading Roman coins since they use so many abbreviations.
I’m still trying to figure out what:
“COS III” means, it seems like “COS” with a number is on a huge number of coins.
At first I thought it meant “Consul” and the numbers were how many years the person was consul (COS III = 3 times Consul) but then it didn’t make sense because some of them had never been Consul.
Yes, it does mean the number of years of Consulship. As far as I'm aware the claims on the coins should match up with the other historical records.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD.
Regarding the weight of an individual denarius, the standard back then can't be viewed with today's eye.
The fineness of metal had to be repected, as was the number of coins struck out of a pound, meaning the average weight of precious metal would be constant on a certain amount of coins, but an individual coin could weight more or less than the average.
By the time of the roman republic, the deviation from the average weight was small, with most of the denarii weighing between 3,80 and 4,00 grams. During the empire it would become less and less strict with a bigger tolerance
Hope I made it clear (not sure though...)
The "XXI" @Sapyx is referring to is the one you see at the exergue of this coin on the reverse
But this Commodus one says COS II on the reverse implying that Commodus served as Consul twice.
I can’t remember reading anything about Commodus ever being a Consul especially considering there was a minimum age limit of 32 to become Consul and Commodus was already co-Emperor with his father in his teens.
The old Republican rulebook was more and more abandoned as the Empire progressed towards full-blown monarchy. Commodus was indeed promoted to Consul in his teens: quoting from his Wikipedia article, "He was made the youngest consul in Roman history in 177 and elevated to co-augustus with his father, having been given the title imperator in 176.". He would have been just fifteen years old at the time. His second consulship was in AD 183, during his sole reign.
Edit: my mistake, his second consulship was in AD 179, and his third in AD 181. In total, he reached COS VII, in AD 192.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD.
And the best for last, Commodus was strangled to death at age 31 while in a drunken stupor. He was not a good ruler.
In all fairness to Commodus I’m sure many Romans drank themselves into a stupor.
You’re right though he was not a good ruler.
But at least he wasn’t a sadist like Nero or a madman like Caligula and I don’t think anyone would accuse Commodus of being a worse emperor than either of them.
He just didn’t want to be Emperor. He liked the power & wealth that came with the position but didn’t care at all about doing the job.
Commodus was a curious inclusion in a series of silver antoniniani issued by Trajan Decius c. 250 AD, trying to restore the veneration of the deified emperors. Nero and Caligula were conspicuously omitted. The coins were kind of the State Quarters of their day, and make a fun subset.
That’s pretty cool.
It’s a shame my budget is limited or I would be interested in collecting them.
Unfortunately even just getting a single denarius from the reign of each Emperor from Augustus to Romulus costs a fortune
A fun subset, yes, but quite tough to complete : it took me 18 years to get both reverses (altar and eagle) for the 11 emperors featured in the series.
Nice ones!!
So I know that all of them are priced differently but what would you say the average price of a coin in that set is?
Also which is the most expensive and rare?
Thanks
As of my own set, the average price has been around 300USD (remember I started it 18 years ago, hence the average price might be pointless). Prices at auction are everywhere from 150 USD to 2000 USD depending on quality and which auction house sells it.
The rarest here is the Marcus Aurelius/altar with long obverse legend.
Because of their good preservation, I guess the most expensive today (from my own set, again) would be Nerva/eagle, Marcus/eagle and Septimius/altar
That’s not a bad price at all. Congrats!
If I recall correctly the double denarius can be identified by the radiate crown right?
Correct
Glad to know I'm learning xD
Is it also true what I read about the double denarius only having 1.5x the silver of a denarius?
Yes. Modern historians regard it as a tax grab by Caracalla, though I'm not sure the same sentiment was around at the time. Taxes would be collected in denarii, but government expenditure (including soldier's salaries) would be paid out in antoninianii. It's free money for the emperor.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD.
Wow that’s crazy. People had to pay in denarii and they had no other choice on coins to use?
I wonder if they could use gold aureii?
Did the good Emperors do this too?
I can’t imagine an Emperor like Marcus Aurelius or Trajan would knowingly rip off their citizens like that.
But I can absolutely see Nero, Caligula and Tiberius doing it.
Rumor has it Tiberius accumulated a whopping 625 million denarii in the treasury during his reign (which Caligula empties).
That’s kinda crazy when you consider Marcus Licinius Crassus was called “The Richest Man in Rome” and “only” had 50 million denarii.
It really shows how wealthy Emperors were compared to even the richest Roman citizens of the time.
Unlike today where there are plenty of Americans far richer than the President or any President we’ve ever had.
The antoninianii-denarii switch scam was only something that could be used once. When all the denarii were effectively withdrawn from circulation and the only coins people had were antoninianii, then the taxes could be accepted in any form.
Yes, if the tax bill was high enough, you could use gold coins to pay your tax bill. But you'd really have to be wealthy to owe that much tax. Don't forget, they didn't have "tax returns" like we do today. You paid your tax on the spot, when the tax collectors asked for it.
The other thing to remember was that, in the time period we're talking about (early and mid Empire), the responsibility for tax collection had been devolved to the provincial governments and local magistrates. They had taxation targets they needed to collect, based on the population and wealth data collected in the previous census, and employed whatever means necessary to reach their target. So even in times of a "good emperor", people in the provinces might find themselves under the thumb of a repressive governor.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD.
Thanks for explaining!
I never thought about the fact that they didn’t have tax returns and paid on the spot.
Did they at least know roughly when tax payments were due? Or did the tax man just randomly show up without prior notification and demand to be paid?
I imagine that would be difficult to have to pay taxes on the spot without knowing when the payment would be due.
People generally knew how much tax they needed to pay, and when. Roman taxation was a much simpler affair than modern taxation systems. At the time under discussion, there were basically three taxes:
The wealth tax was the most complicated, as it was levied at the provincial level. The provincial governors tried to pass this on as a 1% wealth tax, but enforcement was uneven. People whose assets were mostly in cash or otherwise easily salable items were usually unfairly targeted, as things like land were both difficult to evaluate and difficult to convert to cash at short notice.
So the trick, for the wealthy, was to either convert your cash into land or other difficult-to-value assets (like expensive furniture and imported goods), or to try to hide it when the tax assessors paid a visit. Which may, in turn, be at least part of the reason why there are so many hoards of ancient Roman coins found all over the former Empire.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD.
Ah ok that makes sense! Thanks for clarifying. I really appreciate it!