Quote:Hi Jason,
Your coin appears to be what is called an "AE2" - I say "appears" because you have not supplied me with a diameter measurement in mm and this general type is known in a larger and a smaller module. The name "AE2" really only means that it is made from a copper alloy and is of a certain size-range (around the size of a US quarter-dollar) - since we don't know what the actual names of the coins were at this time in history. Political chaos in the Roman Empire, rampant inflation and economic troubles made for rapidly changing denominations and re-valuations of pieces which had only briefly been in circulation. In fact, it's probably a good idea to think of Roman coins of this era (mid-late 4th century AD - 378-383 AD or thereabouts) as being the equivalent of paper banknotes. Their "real" value had little to do with size and a lot more to do with what the government said they were worth - tempered by what the population believed they were worth.
This piece was issued by the Empreor Valentinian II, son of the emperor who was nominally the founder of the "dynasty" which more-or-less replaced the Constantinian Dynasty, supplying many of the Imperials of the late Roman period - the end of the real power of the Roman Empire in Europe - which would take about another century to be lost altogether. His father, Valentinian I, came to power at the time of the death of Jovian, who was a staunch supporter of Julian II - the last surviving member of the family of Constantine the Great, in 364 AD, and ruled alongside his brother Valens, (who came to the throne at the same time) and later his son Gratian as well, until his death in 375 AD. It was common for there to be more than one emperor sharing the empire's administrative duties between themselves at this time. Valentinian II shared the Imperial Purple with his brother Gratian and a cousin, Theodosius I.
Your coin's obverse ("heads") reads D N VALENTINIANVS P F AVG which was the common formula of abbreviations for expressing an emperor's name and titles on a coin at the time - roughly translated it reads "Our Master Valentinian, the Emperor, who gladly upholds his responsibilities".
The reverse (tails) shows the emperor standing left, raising a kneeling female allegorical personification of "Republic" (the Romans were big on illustrating abstract concepts with human representatives - indeed, our Statue of Liberty, as a symbol of the abstract concept of Liberty, would have been perfectly comprehensible to any Roman) with his right hand while holding a Victoriola - a small statue of the goddess Victory standing on a globe (winged Victory would later morph into the Christian representation of an angel, but Christianity was too new in the Empire for this to have occurred yet). The legend on the reverse is REPARATIO REIPVB - roughly, "(to the) Restoration of the Republic"
The reverses of Roman coins had, from the first, been a combination of a "paid political announcement" and one of the few forms of mass media in a time without internet, television, raido or even newspapers to supply the populace of a far-flung empire with news. This is one of the "inspirational propaganda" types and shows the emperor symbolically raising-up "The Republic" from its downcast state.
As for the mint - and Roman coins were minted at the time at a widespread system of 16 provincial mints, all striking essentially the same types, spread across the Empire from London to Alexandria in Egypt. Your coin appears - and I say appears because the area at the bottom of the reverse which names the mint is very unclear on your specimen - to be from the mint of Siscia (BSISC). This is in what is now Serbia, on the eastern shore of the Adriatic. The mint at Siscia was extremely prolific and with the opening of areas of Eastern Europe which had been economically closed to the West until relatively recently, there have been many recently discovered coins coming into the US which originated at the mint at Siscia.
As far as "how much to insure it for..." I am trying really hard not to laugh. This piece has about as little value in terms of what it should sell for - what its market value might be - as any identifiable Roman coin of which I can think. Made in astronomically large quantities (billions, probably) in a time of extreme inflation at 16 different mints across "the known world" of the time, they have survived literally in their millions to the present day. A "nice" specimen of this type might bring $25 on a good day. A really spectacularly nicely struck and preserved specmen might bring $50 - but in this condition it is only worth what it means to you as a window on an earlier age - which can be quite a lot if what I've written makes you curious enough to read a bit and investigate the history of the Roman Empire. To be fair, on a really good day a collector, if he were interested in this specimen at all, might pay you $1-$5 for it at very most.
Here is a picture of a similar specimen - same type, different ruler (Gratian, Valentinian's son) and different mint (Lyon in France) from my collection - this might give you an idea of what a piece considered a "low end", but collectible-quality specimen looks like:
I volunteer some time for a live, on-line ancient coin auction most weekends, and were I to put this piece up for sale, I'd be surprised to get more than $10-$15 for it. It's a very common coin and not in great demand since it's from a historically obscure point in the Roman Empire's history.
I doubt your coin would draw a bid in this auction, even if it were started at $1. Sorry to be so brutally frank about the value, but many folks think that merely because something is old, it has great value. I'd ask you to consider how much the pebbles on a beach - any of which is undoubtedly billions of years old - might be worth.
At any rate, best of luck to you - I suggest you use your current curiosity to prompt you to investigate Roman history a bit - it is truly fascinating - full of heros and villains, battles and barbarians, plots & schemes, victories and defeats enough to keep anyone fascinated for a long time.
Best regrds,
Mark Lehman
Posted 07/04/2008 08:34 am
