7 ms·

Ancient Roman Coins: How Were They Made?

61 points by homarp 5y ago

tommica 5y ago
Interesting article, do wonder how they handled forgeries
- kop316 5y ago
  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 5y ago
  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.
- thom 5y ago
  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/142/119 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-for-counterfeiting-coins-in-roman-london.pdf https://www.colat.org.uk/_assets/doc/faking-it-the-evidence-...
  - thom 5y ago
    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=10.1.1.511.7855&rep=rep1&type=pdf https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.51...
- lazyier 5y ago
  > 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.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    >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 5y ago
      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.
- candiddevmike 5y ago
  Britain had a huge problem with this, also known as coin clipping: https://historyhouse.co.uk/articles/coin_clipping.html https://historyhouse.co.uk/articles/coin_clipping.html
coolhoody 5y ago
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 5y ago
  TIL that you can get a Roman coin for as little as about $30.
  - kergonath 5y ago
    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 5y ago
      Do you know what a ”cheap” pure gold coin costs, if there are such coins?
      - kergonath 5y ago
        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.
        masklinn 5y ago
        > 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)
osigurdson 5y ago
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_coins
timmg 5y ago
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 :)
- debacle 5y ago
  Get yourself a metal detector kit and head to the UK.
  - boringg 5y ago
    But then wouldn't you become a robber if you found something?
    - brianwawok 5y ago
      Not if you replace what you rob with a loonie
    - shagie 5y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_trove#United_Kingdom 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.
sillyquiet 5y ago
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 https://www.forumancientcoins.com/historia/imitative.htm
geokon 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    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 5y ago
  > 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#Coin_clipping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_coin_debasement#Coi...
  - geokon 5y ago
    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
- Ekaros 5y ago
  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.
JoeAltmaier 5y ago
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.
buu700 5y ago
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 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 https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/tyqvwn)

61 points by homarp 5y ago

tommica 5y ago

Interesting article, do wonder how they handled forgeries

kop316 5y ago
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 5y ago
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.
thom 5y ago
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/142/119 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-for-counterfeiting-coins-in-roman-london.pdf https://www.colat.org.uk/_assets/doc/faking-it-the-evidence-...
- thom 5y ago
  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=10.1.1.511.7855&rep=rep1&type=pdf https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.51...
lazyier 5y ago
> 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.
- imtringued 5y ago
  >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 5y ago
    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.
candiddevmike 5y ago
Britain had a huge problem with this, also known as coin clipping: https://historyhouse.co.uk/articles/coin_clipping.html https://historyhouse.co.uk/articles/coin_clipping.html

coolhoody 5y ago

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 5y ago
TIL that you can get a Roman coin for as little as about $30.
- kergonath 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    Do you know what a ”cheap” pure gold coin costs, if there are such coins?
    - kergonath 5y ago
      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.
      - masklinn 5y ago
        > 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)

osigurdson 5y ago

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_coins

timmg 5y ago

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 :)

debacle 5y ago
Get yourself a metal detector kit and head to the UK.
- boringg 5y ago
  But then wouldn't you become a robber if you found something?
  - brianwawok 5y ago
    Not if you replace what you rob with a loonie
  - shagie 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_trove#United_Kingdom 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.

sillyquiet 5y ago

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 https://www.forumancientcoins.com/historia/imitative.htm

geokon 5y ago

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 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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 5y ago
> 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#Coin_clipping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_coin_debasement#Coi...
- geokon 5y ago
  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
Ekaros 5y ago
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.

JoeAltmaier 5y ago

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.

buu700 5y ago

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 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 https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/tyqvwn)