What was the silver purity of the Roman Republic Quadrigatus?

MKUltra24

I recently picked up this Roman Republic quadrigatus from the Second Punic War (Rome vs Hannibal period) and I’ve tried to look online for information about silver purity but I couldn’t find much.

The only scientific data I found was a way too complicated chemical analysis but I don’t know how to read it so I’m curious..

Does anyone happen to know the silver purity of these coins?

I’m curious if they are high purity like the denarius was at the beginning under Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius etc.,

Or if it’s debased silver like the denarius was by the late 3rd century when it was basically 95% copper with a 5% thin silver coating.

If anyone has any information about this I would appreciate it.

Thanks! 🙏

Note: There is a crack behind the eye of the left face as well as a small chipped off piece at the edge of the 2 o clock position on the obverse.

It looks like silver underneath but maybe someone else can identify if it is or not better than me.

Namvet69

I've got to suspect that this type coin has been analyzed. Maybe you could do an xrf thru the holder. Peace Roy

1984worldcoins

From what I know, the roman republican coins were very high on silver, I cant remember the source but the purity is over 95%. These coins were used hundreds of years after the minting, just because of this.

MKUltra24

@Namvet69 said:
I've got to suspect that this type coin has been analyzed. Maybe you could do an xrf thru the holder. Peace Roy

I wish I could but I don’t have $10,000 to plunk down on an XRF machine 😔 .

MKUltra24

@1984worldcoins said:
From what I know, the roman republican coins were very high on silver, I cant remember the source but the purity is over 95%. These coins were used hundreds of years after the minting, just because of this.

Thanks! I hope it is 95% or higher purity. I hate debased coinage.

Sapyx

The silver purity of pre-Imperial Roman silver coins is "as high as ancient silver-refining technology was capable of producing". Typically around 95% silver, occasionally hitting up to 98%.

SmEagle1795

@MKUltra24 said:

@1984worldcoins said:
From what I know, the roman republican coins were very high on silver, I cant remember the source but the purity is over 95%. These coins were used hundreds of years after the minting, just because of this.

Thanks! I hope it is 95% or higher purity. I hate debased coinage.

Why? It's part of the history. Are you not interested in any coinage after Nero when the debasement began?

MKUltra24

@SmEagle1795 said:

@MKUltra24 said:

@1984worldcoins said:
From what I know, the roman republican coins were very high on silver, I cant remember the source but the purity is over 95%. These coins were used hundreds of years after the minting, just because of this.

Thanks! I hope it is 95% or higher purity. I hate debased coinage.

Why? It's part of the history. Are you not interested in any coinage after Nero when the debasement began?

I don’t know why it’s just a feeling I get. I don’t mind debased coinage if it’s still mostly silver but I just never liked the late 3rd century denarii that are copper with a thin silver coating.

It’s just my own personal taste and preference. I really like the coins that are mostly silver.

Granted I don’t mind some debasement, I am ok with like 70-80% silver and I have denarii from the 2nd century that are slightly debased.

It’s just the heavily debased stuff I don’t care for.

MKUltra24

@Sapyx said:
The silver purity of pre-Imperial Roman silver coins is "as high as ancient silver-refining technology was capable of producing". Typically around 95% silver, occasionally hitting up to 98%.

But someone on the CT forums had pictures showing pre-Imperial silver coinage that was debased during times of crisis (like the Second Punic War) and he showed 3 different Quadrigatus coins with varying debasement.

I just don’t know which one mine is.

Sapyx

I think your coin is fine. Back in 200 BC, the Romans hadn't yet figured out how to "fake" god-looking silver. The Bactrians knew how, via their serendipitous discovery of the alloy we today call "cupronickel", but it wasn;t a secret they'd shared. So unless your coin looks as awful as the debased examples you've linked to, your coin should be fine. In both relevant senses of that word.

MKUltra24

@Sapyx said:
I think your coin is fine. Back in 200 BC, the Romans hadn't yet figured out how to "fake" god-looking silver. The Bactrians knew how, via their serendipitous discovery of the alloy we today call "cupronickel", but it wasn;t a secret they'd shared. So unless your coin looks as awful as the debased examples you've linked to, your coin should be fine. In both relevant senses of that word.

Thanks! I think mine looks more like the first one. The design looks cleaner and better struck.

The later ones look like they were made in a hurry with less attention paid to design & strike.

Is it true that silver was worth more back then because it was mined with primitive tools in small quantities by hand by slaves working in dangerous conditions? Whereas today it’s mined with huge diesel powered shovels in relative safety?

1984worldcoins

The silver content in these ancient coins has such a low value compared to the numismatic value that it doesnt even matter.

Sapyx

It's not so much the methods - everything back then was primitive, done by hand, and often by slaves in dangerous conditions - but simply the amounts produced. Silver was scarcer, compared to gold, back then because there were relatively fewer silver mines - the industrial-scale extractions in Mexico, Bolivia and Australia were yet to be invented. Or rather, there have not been the same levels of industrial-scale gold mining, to see silver pegged at the ancient gold ratio of 10:1.

In terms of absolute value, in terms of the amount of silver that an "average person" could expect to own, silver is actually worth more today than it was back then. That's because the rate of growth of silver mining over the last two millennia is linear at best, while the human population continues to grow exponentially. Which means that in each generation, there's less and less silver per person to be had.

MKUltra24

@1984worldcoins said:
The silver content in these ancient coins has such a low value compared to the numismatic value that it doesnt even matter.

It matters to me. I just don’t like heavily debased coins. I like coins that are high in silver purity. It’s just a personal preference. It’s not that I am considering the melt value. You’re right the melt value is insignificant compared to the numismatic value.

MKUltra24

@Sapyx said:
It's not so much the methods - everything back then was primitive, done by hand, and often by slaves in dangerous conditions - but simply the amounts produced. Silver was scarcer, compared to gold, back then because there were relatively fewer silver mines - the industrial-scale extractions in Mexico, Bolivia and Australia were yet to be invented. Or rather, there have not been the same levels of industrial-scale gold mining, to see silver pegged at the ancient gold ratio of 10:1.

In terms of absolute value, in terms of the amount of silver that an "average person" could expect to own, silver is actually worth more today than it was back then. That's because the rate of growth of silver mining over the last two millennia is linear at best, while the human population continues to grow exponentially. Which means that in each generation, there's less and less silver per person to be had.

But then how come back during the Second Punic War a legionary only made 2 obols per day (1.2 grams of silver) whereas today 1.2 grams of silver is about $2?

Compared to the average low ranking private in the military who makes about $70 per day which is enough to buy about 2.5 troy oz per day or about 70 grams of silver?

That means a soldier today is paid almost 35 times more than a soldier back then in terms of silver.

Sapyx

I think that speaks more towards how far "above average" a modern US Army soldier is paid, compared to the global "average person".

Sapyx

It also speaks to the decommercialization of silver. People back then expected their wealth to be stored in silver. People today store their wealth electronically, or in non-silver cash, or other means. If everyone in the world suddenly wanted to trade in their cash for silver, there wouldn't be anywhere near enough of the stuff to go around - and the price would soar accordingly.

MKUltra24

@Sapyx said:
It also speaks to the decommercialization of silver. People back then expected their wealth to be stored in silver. People today store their wealth electronically, or in non-silver cash, or other means. If everyone in the world suddenly wanted to trade in their cash for silver, there wouldn't be anywhere near enough of the stuff to go around - and the price would soar accordingly.

That’s true. I never considered the fact that most people don’t store their wealth in silver and even most silver stackers only store a portion of it in silver.

It’s just crazy to think they only made 1.2 grams of silver per day. Heck I thought the legionaries during the Roman Empire under Tiberius were underpaid at 1 denarius per day but that’s still 3x as much as the legionaries fighting against Hannibal.

Then they had to pay taxes on their 1.2 grams of silver per day.

It just boggles my mind. That 6.67 gram quadrigatus I posted a few days ago would’ve been worth over 5 days pay back when it circulated.

But as you said if people today all converted their cash to silver the price would go through the roof.

I bet even if only 10% of the population did it the price would still skyrocket.

In that scenario 1.2 grams might be worth a days pay xD