Talk:Roman currency

What a fascinating and detailed treatment of the subject! I can see that a lot of work went into this. Really terrific!

I made a number of minor edits. A couple of questions remain:

Under "Early Currency", we read: "Next a standardized currency cast bronze based around the domination known as the as, which weighed one Roman pound, and fractional values." I see no verb in this sentence. If I had to guess what's missing, I would insert something like "came" after "Next", and insert "in" after "cast".

In the final paragraph, a word appeared to be missing where we read about "the expense of continual ___". I inserted the word "wars" here. Hope that is right.

I wonder whether it might be useful to insert the word "minter" after the first usage of the word "moneyer". It was the first time I'd seen that word.

Thanks for the excellent article.

-- Jose Ramos 11:23, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for reading through the page and making corrections. I have corrected the sentence under "Early Currency" to read "Next came a standardized currency of cast bronze...". You're right, before it wasn't a complete sentence. Adding "wars" was correct, I guess I sometimes leave words out. I put "moneyer" in parenthesis after a mention of "tresviri monetales", because that is the official I was referring to. The term minter is usually applied to the person actually making the coins as opposed to the official in charge of the coinage (moneyer). Glad you enjoyed what I wrote. M123 19:34, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Diminished size of what?

"...valued at originally at 10 asses, it was retariffed in 140 BC to 16 asses (to reflect the diminished size of the as)."

I'm assuming "ass" is meant (as in "donkey"), but can someone clarify why ass size decreased before 140 BC?

Wikisux 04:18, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The as (coin) decreased in size. I can't comment on the size of their donkeys. Maximus Rex 07:55, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I stand corrected... and hopefully a little wiser. Thanks. Wikisux 08:34, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

second century BC

"These were used from the middle of the second century BC ...."

From the II Punic war, in the third century BC.

it:Utente:Carlomorino

Problems

There are many problems with this page, mostly having to do with covering too much territory in one page. For example, the first sentence is wrong:

The main Roman currency during most of the Roman Republic and the western half of the Roman Empire consisted of coins including: the aureus (gold), the denarius (silver), the sestertius (bronze), the dupondius (bronze), and the as (copper).

The aureus was not used in the republic at all; the sestertius was never made of bronze during the republic, the as usually was.

I intend to work on the roman republican coinage page for a while and try to improve that one smaller area. I suggest that this page simply point to that one; it is already much more accurate.

Disagreement

The value for the quinarius presented in the table disagrees with the article for the quinarius. --Savant13 00:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you please be more clear, cause I dont see it. The quinarius article is saying for the silver coin, it was always values at half a denarius, and the gold coin at 12.5 denarius. The Denarius article states the same. For this article in the Augustan Value the second table has 2 silver quinarius to 1 denarius left to right and half a denarius top to bottom. This table is based on the denarius and th value of other coins relating to it. Enlil Ninlil 03:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Weight Problem

...wars. The aureus had a fixed value of 25 denarii.

As time went on, in Rome, while the coin was 95% silver, it gradually lowered, finally to a quality of 0%. Roman coins were worth from a loaf of bread up to a new horse or lion depending on their value. The silver coins were worth the most whereas the bronze coins weren't as valuable or desirable as the silver coins.

Which coin was 95% silver? And by lowered in quality, what do you mean? If it does go to 0% silver, what was it made out of instead? Copper? Bronze? Lead? Wheat?
~ender 2007-03-09 19:46:PM MST —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.167.217.162 (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

It should be stated as a reduction of the silver content, this is debasing and is usually relaced by a cheaper metal,of mainly copper, Iron or brass. Lead from what we know wasnt that common as a coin and wheat, well wheat biscuits could be used. The denarius was the main silver coin, there were other's but they wern't as mass produced as the former. Lowering in quality would be the debasing. And a 0% silver would be a bronze coin, that some call a limes denarius. Enlil Ninlil 03:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Value

It would be interesting to see the value of Roman coins through the times, compared to say, the current value of the euro and the dollar. Shinobu 13:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be extremly hard to do considering the vastly differences in the type of economy, personal wealth, currency in circulation and how it was values welfare systems etc. But good luck if you can do it. Also maybe stick to one area for both analysis like Umbria or Spain to get a better insight. Enlil Ninlil 04:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was easy ;-) What one could do is use a consumer price indexing scheme.

As well as the all-items HICPs, a range of around 100 indices for different goods and services are made available. The main headings are as follows:

• Food
• Alcohol and tobacco
• Clothing
• Housing
• Household equipment
• Health
• Transport
• Communications
• Recreation and culture
• Education
• Hotels and restaurants
• Miscellaneous

In addition a series of special aggregates are released, including:

• The HICP excluding energy,
• The HICP excluding energy, food, alcohol and tobacco,
• The HICP excluding unprocessed food
• The HICP excluding energy and seasonal goods
• The HICP excluding tobacco

(from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-BE-04-001/EN/KS-BE-04-001-EN.PDF)

Apparently, these are then put in some kind of weighted average. If we could find that data, both current and estimates for the Roman period, there would be a few ratios of interest. The primary ones that spring to mind are:

• The absolute price ratio of a fixed amount of the goods described above. This could give a rough exchange rate.
• The ratio of the average expenses of an average person now and then. This would be a measure of how expensive life was.
• The ratio of goods (as described above) bought now and then. This could give a rough estimate of how pour/rich people were.

http://sdw.ecb.int/reports.do?currentNodeId=100000181 gives an idea of what percentages are current. These would of course have been different in Roman times. Current percentages:

• 59.2 Goods
  • 19.6 Food
    • 11.9 Processed food
    • 7.6 Unprocessed food
  • 39.6 Industrial goods
    • 30.0 Non-energy industrial goods
    • 9.6 Energy
• 40.8 Services
  • 10.2 Housing
    • Of which rents: 6.2
  • 6.4 Transport
  • 3.1 Communication
  • 14.4 Recreation and personal
  • 6.7 Miscellaneous

For a meaningful comparison, we would need percentages like these for the Roman period, and also price comparisons of actual goods and services. I guess we would need a historian for that data. Shinobu 19:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Currency Debasement

"but the most common theories involve inflation" A debased currency cannot be the result of inflation -- it is, rather, the cause of inflation. (It increases the amount of currency chasing the same amount of goods.) And currency debasement is never "necessary" -- it is a stealthy alternative to raising taxes or cutting troops salaries.

Aurei

In this otherwise excellent article there's not much attention to the role of the aureus. Was it used in daily payment, or was it something special, maybe a present for a distinct occasion? Soczyczi 12:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Commercial Links

I deleted all COMMERCIAL external links that were clearly commercial. PLEASE do not discriminate by removing some commercial links and leaving some. If you delete commercial links then delete ALL of them.

I have reverted your removal of links. Just because a link is commercial does not mean it should automatically be removed. Forum Ancient Coins for example is without a doubt one of the top 3 websites on ancient coins on the Internet. It should be there, removing is a great disservice to Wikipedians. Given your tone here, I would suspect that you had a link removed and are retaliating. If I'm wrong I apologize, however, in my opinion, a mass removal of links like this should be done by an established editor to have more credibility. Bobby ^{I'm Here, Are You There?} 15:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The uppercase I wrote is not shouting, it's for accent. I posted a link to show Roman paper currency. It's a gallery page, not a commercial, although (as most non-commercial pages) it has an non-intrusive link to buy those notes. I'd like to know if my link can be posted since it is to the topic and it is intended not to sell, but to display the Roman currency. The link is located at: banknotes.com/rom.htm