Catalog
See full images - free registration
Continue with Google - no registration!
or register with email
Why register? Just to keep bots out of our catalog. Your email stays private - we will never share it or send you anything uninvited. We guarantee you that!
1 Aureus - Imitating an Uncertain Ruler
| Issuer | Uncertain Germanic tribes |
|---|---|
| Year | 250-325 |
| Type | Log in to see details |
| Value | Log in to see details |
| Currency | Log in to see details |
| Composition | Log in to see details |
| Weight | Log in to see details |
| Diameter | Log in to see details |
| Thickness | Log in to see details |
| Shape | Log in to see details |
| Technique | Hammered |
| Orientation | Log in to see details |
| Engraver(s) | Log in to see details |
| In circulation to | Log in to see details |
| Reference(s) | Log in to see details |
| Obverse description | Laureate bust of an uncertain ruler facing left, rendered in a barbarous imitative style. Eleven pellets or dots appear in the field before the bust. The effigy is encircled by a degenerate Latin legend, the lettering showing the characteristic corruption typical of Germanic barbarous imitations of late Roman imperial coinage. |
|---|---|
| Obverse script | Log in to see details |
| Obverse lettering | D II SI - BNOI PIIBNCI IIT |
| Reverse description | Log in to see details |
| Reverse script | Log in to see details |
| Reverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Edge | Log in to see details |
| Mint | Log in to see details |
| Mintage | Log in to see details |
| Additional information |
Germanic imitation aurei of this period were not crude forgeries in any modern sense — they were prestige objects, struck by tribal workshops that understood the social weight of Roman gold without necessarily caring about its monetary orthodoxy. The prototypes being imitated are often impossible to pin down precisely because the die-cutters were working from worn coins, secondhand knowledge, or multiple sources simultaneously, producing hybrids that correspond to no single Roman emperor.
The Jameson reference yielding no number suggests this piece sat outside even that expansive collection's classificatory reach.