Author Topic: CONSTANTINOPOLIS/ROMA mule  (Read 3284 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Genio popvli romani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
  • Country: fr
CONSTANTINOPOLIS/ROMA mule
« on: August 15, 2012, 10:22:07 AM »
After the first one I've already posted:

 


Here is its sister  ;D:[/center]

 


The reverse seems to have been engraved by a Fernando Botero fan. :D




ROMA CAPVT MVNDI REGIT ORBIS FRENA ROTVNDI

Offline Victor

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4081
  • Country: us
  • all my best friends are dead Romans
    • Victor's Imperial Coins
Re: CONSTANTINOPOLIS/ROMA mule
« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2012, 11:13:43 AM »
It is interesting that so many of these types paired the obverse/reverse incorrectly, almost like it was not that important... either they were very careless or maybe they figured nobody would notice or care.

Offline Genio popvli romani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
  • Country: fr
Re: CONSTANTINOPOLIS/ROMA mule
« Reply #2 on: August 15, 2012, 12:14:15 PM »
I guess the main thing was, at this time, the money to do the right weight (its true value) and to be made of good alloy.

Similarly, I think the unofficial currencies were in most cases tolerated (like what we'll call in later in France “monnaies de nécessité”) by the Authorities in order to compensate the lack of currency (especially in the western empire), we must not forget that with the multiple devaluations of bronze coins, they had very little value and the need was huge. Moreover, these devaluations also led a high hoarding level (to our delight ;)) thereby further reducing the availability of metal.

I have often noticed that the imitations of good style -what you call counterfeits- had "errors" in the legends either in the mintmark or obverse/reverse pairing. This may seem strange, but seeing this, we could assume that was done on purpose, maybe just to avoid being accused of infringement for exemple (it is just an idea).
« Last Edit: August 15, 2012, 12:38:14 PM by Genio popvli romani »
ROMA CAPVT MVNDI REGIT ORBIS FRENA ROTVNDI

Offline Victor

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4081
  • Country: us
  • all my best friends are dead Romans
    • Victor's Imperial Coins
Re: CONSTANTINOPOLIS/ROMA mule
« Reply #3 on: August 22, 2012, 12:01:51 PM »
(like what we'll call in later in France “monnaies de nécessité”)

The Germans have a term for this also-- notgeld




Similarly, I think the unofficial currencies were in most cases tolerated by the Authorities in order to compensate the lack of currency


There have been a few numismatists that have expressed this belief, however there were many laws passed in the 4th century against counterfeiters. During the Principate, only counterfeiters of gold and silver might be executed as there were no laws against bronze counterfeits, but starting in A.D. 318 laws were passed regarding the counterfeiting of bronze.

I will quote Pierre Bastien, who sums it up nicely- "The emperors of the fourth century did not "tolerate" an offense that their laws emphatically condemned, but rather demonstrated an inability to control it."

Bastien, Pierre. “Imitations of Late Roman Bronze Coins, 318-363.” American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 30 (1985) : 175.


Offline Genio popvli romani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
  • Country: fr
Re: CONSTANTINOPOLIS/ROMA mule
« Reply #4 on: September 13, 2012, 05:03:09 AM »
I do agree with Dr Bastien, no doubt about laws, but the question is: did they really wish?

In fact, I have a few questions that still have no answers in this case:

-   Why the number of counterfeited coins seems to have exploded, first, nearly 318 compared to Diocletian period and the early Constantinian era and particularly in the western empire?
-   How did the authorities expect to fight the lack of small bronze coinage after the closure of Trier mint in 355, a few years after the VICTORIAE DD AVGG Q NN emission has stopped (348) and just after the Ae3 “falling horseman” was issued (354) knowing that Trier mint was providing at this time the most part of Gaul and Britain needs?
-   Why is there a lot of struck imitative coins and no cast one which is probably the easiest way to produce counterfeited coinage (probably a link with Theodosian IX-21-3 code which is very clear)?
-   Why did the counterfeiters generally use a so quite similar (and expensive) alloy, as you have shown in your thesis, as the official coinage? I would have separated silver before  ;D.

I think that there are many different cases according to the period, the location and the conjuncture. But I believe that sometimes, authorities had no answer to the needs and so, if it was not degrading the emperor' s image, “closed the eyes” (at least one  ;) ) on what was going on in a secondary territory for example. In the other hand, I have no doubt concerning a zero tolerance when it was an official transaction like paying taxes, only official coinage was accepted.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2012, 07:49:44 AM by Genio popvli romani »
ROMA CAPVT MVNDI REGIT ORBIS FRENA ROTVNDI

Offline Victor

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4081
  • Country: us
  • all my best friends are dead Romans
    • Victor's Imperial Coins
Re: CONSTANTINOPOLIS/ROMA mule
« Reply #5 on: September 13, 2012, 12:14:42 PM »
I do agree with Dr Bastien, no doubt about laws, but the question is: did they really wish?

I believe that on a local level, these imitations were tolerated by officials. It would have been too much trouble to enforce these laws and, at least in the eyes of the local government, not worth the effort- all that would have really resulted would have been the alienation of the local people.


-   Why the number of counterfeited coins seems to have exploded, first, nearly 318 compared to Diocletian period and the early Constantinian era and particularly in the western empire?


Imitations turn up in greater numbers after re-tariffing, like when this occurred in A.D. 318. The monetary reforms in this year de-monetized previous issues, so people made imitations out of the old issues.


-   How did the authorities expect to fight the lack of small bronze coinage after the closure of Trier mint in 355, a few years after the VICTORIAE DD AVGG Q NN emission has stopped (348) and just after the Ae3 “falling horseman” was issued (354) knowing that Trier mint was providing at this time the most part of Gaul and Britain needs?

The London mint was also closed in A.D. 325, which surely meant less coins for the West, which is evidenced by the many imitations found in the Western areas of the Roman Empire. This demonstrates the lack of fiscal understanding or lack of care by the central Roman government. The Roman authorities were never that concerned with minting coins for the population. The primary concerns for a mint were minting money to pay for government debts, such as salaries of government employees and military expenditures. This is clearly shown by mint closures—the mints closed when the government officials and military were transferred to more economically important areas.


-   Why is there a lot of struck imitative coins and no cast one which is probably the easiest way to produce counterfeited coinage (probably a link with Theodosian IX-21-3 code which is very clear)?
I don’t believe that people thought that they could circumvent the laws by striking coins versus making casts, especially since law IX 9:21:4 in the Theodosian Code specifically forbids “stamping.” A lot of coins, though, were cast. Kathy King (in her article “Roman Copies”) has a map which shows over 120 places in the Roman Empire, with many in the West, where moulds were found that had been used to cast coins. It does seem that the majority (especially in the 4th century and onwards) were struck. I believe it would be easier and faster to strike coins once the dies were made. After making the dies coins could be struck at a very fast rate, versus the much slower process of casting.


-   Why did the counterfeiters generally use a so quite similar (and expensive) alloy, as you have shown in your thesis, as the official coinage? I would have separated silver before  ;D.

It is probably not that easy to remove the silver from coins that you are melting down. Many of these people that were making these imitations probably had no idea how to even go about the process. Even if you did know how, it would also have probably been a lot of work for 2-5% silver. Some people did it though- in the Theodosian Code 9:21:6, it says metal casters were purging the silver, but these were probably very skilled workers who knew what they were doing, while for others the process was not understood, or they did not have the necessary supplies or material to perform the operation successfully.



But I believe that sometimes, authorities had no answer to the needs and so, if it was not degrading the emperor' s image, “closed the eyes” (at least one  ;) ) on what was going on in a secondary territory for example. In the other hand, I have no doubt concerning a zero tolerance when it was an official transaction like paying taxes, only official coinage was accepted.



Yes, I believe the local authorities tolerated the unofficial coinage, mainly because it did not impact them. The unofficial coinage would have only been used in day to day transactions, like in the market.