Ancient Roman Coins: How Were They Made? | Hacker News Reader

Ancient Roman Coins: How Were They Made?

thecollector.com

61 pointshomarp56 comments

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)

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.

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 :)

Not buying the coins won't unrob them. They are still robbed. You can't do anything about that. Go ahead and enjoy.

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.

Get yourself a metal detector kit and head to the UK.

But then wouldn't you become a robber if you found something?

Not if you replace what you rob with a loonie

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.

Interesting, robbed from who?

Archeological sites.

If these are 1,000 year old coins found in an archeological site.... who do the coins "belong" to that were "robbed"?

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).

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

Only the UK coincides with the largest extent of the Roman Empire. So these laws would be inapplicable to the vast majority of Roman finds.

Before the archeologists had a chance to rob them first.

Robbing implies taking property unlawfully by force or threat of force. Who exactly was threatened by force in archeological sites?

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).

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.

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.

>Unfortunately, my wife has an archeology degree. She says that most ancient coins have been "robbed". And that it is unethical to buy them.

Actually this isn't always the case, especially for late Roman coins made from extremely debased metals. These coins were so abundant that in many cases they were used as ballast for ships (and subsequently recovered from shipwrecks). You can find these common late Roman coins on Ebay for a couple of bucks or in bulk even cheaper.

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

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.

TIL that you can get a Roman coin for as little as about $30.

Where?

https://www.apmex.com/category/29913/roman-empire-coins?sort...

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.

Is this due to the cutting of the coin with cheaper metals ?

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).

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.

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.

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.

Do you know what a ”cheap” pure gold coin costs, if there are such coins?

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 €1000, no idea about how prices might vary in the US.

> 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)

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.

Where did you get a Nuka Cola cap, off Etsy or something? Or from the limited run of Jones sodas?

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

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

Guessing that was due to filing, or a counterfeiter without the proper tools. A good roman Denarius should be thick, heavy and quite round.

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.

> 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...

I think you're just guessing

In the link you provide the first picture "An unclipped siliqua" it's clearly not round and off center

If anything the clipped ones are rounder and more symmetric

I think something to remember is that they were mass produced by hand with relatively primitive tools. No precisely aligned powered(steam or anything) presses available. Often forgotten that precise machining is quite late invention from around 1800.

Interesting article, do wonder how they handled forgeries

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).

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.

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-...

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...

> 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.

>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.

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.

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.

Was there a standard way for governments to check? Reminds me of Archimedes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes#Archimedes'_princip...

Britain had a huge problem with this, also known as coin clipping: https://historyhouse.co.uk/articles/coin_clipping.html

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com