Talk:Roman currency

message: I object to the use of BCE/CE dating system in parts of this article. This is American political correctness. Jafdip (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "...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)
replies: text: The as (coin) decreased in size. I can't comment on the size of their donkeys.  Maximus Rex 07:55, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected... and hopefully a little wiser. Thanks. Wikisux 08:34, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diminished size of what? 

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

message: ...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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Weight Problem 

message: "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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.158.50.120 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Currency Debasement 

message: 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)
thread_title: Aurei

message: Should the first two coin comparison tables be in respect to the as, not the greatest denomination? The as was the sort of 'standard', as reflected by the other coins' names, e.g. 'semis' for half, 'triens' for a third of an as. Eric B 14:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tables 

message: Gallo Roman(260-274 A.D.) povinces broke away from  Rome. Had m,any coins Maybe a mention as well?ThanksJANUSROMA (talk) 04:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps mention of the coinage of the Gallo Roman  Empire too? 

message: Hy there. I think that this article is simply trying to do too much. I believe that some of its content could be transferred towards Roman Republican currency and Roman Imperial currency. This article would continue to be the 'main article' and should describe the major issues. Later developments during the Republic should be described in 'Roman Republican currency'. Developments and major issues under the empire should be explained in 'Roman Imperial currency'. Flamarande (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transfer some content to other articles? 

message: I have fixed several attempts at vandalism starting from this, which for some weird reason replaced the words gold and silver with panda and snake. Whatever.
Several further vandal edits followed, along with fake or incomplete attempts at fixing the problem, so it wasn't possible to simply undo the issue. If this persists, the page may need to be locked to prevent anonymous edits. For now, please watch out.
Pestergaines (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Snakes and Pandas 

message: The Fraction template may be elegant, but many of the fractions came out too small to read. For example, in  the denominator is "5", but it looks like a "6" on my screen at any reasonable font view size. So I changed all the fractions to plain text (4/5). 
Where there was an integer before the fraction (12 ) I inserted two no-break spaces after the integer (12  1/2). I've often seen a hyphen used in such cases in American usage (12-1/2 or 12 - 1/2), but I don't know how widespread that usage is and thought it could be too easily mistaken for a minus sign. 
-- Thnidu (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fractions 

message: The link "Buying Power of Roman Coins" on the main page does not work.  It would be very useful if there were some idea of what items could be bought with particular coins, such as in the time of Augustus (to correlate to the tables given).DeAragon 20:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed the broken link. Augoust (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link not working 

message: Hi folks, I'm pleased to say that the curators at the Yorkshire Museum have continued to be keen on Wikipedia well after my residency finished! They've just uploaded some high-resolution images of Roman coins: focusing on emperors that currently have no images on their biography articles. Hopefully they'll be useful here too! You can find them here: Numismatic collections of York Museums Trust. The categories could use a little sorting but are pretty usable as is. Cheers PatHadley (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[commons:Category:Numismatic_collections_of_York_Museums_Trust|New high-quality images]] 

message: This article states "Quietus, for example, ruled only part of the Roman Empire from 260 to 261 AD, and yet he issued two coins bearing his image." This is not true, as there are many coins of Quietus in existence, certainly more than twohttp://www.coinproject.com/search_common.php?global_keyword=quietus&submit=submit. I am not sure what the original editor had in mind, but this should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1ThatGuyJoe1 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear/False statement regarding Quietus 

message: Footnote 11 (ancientcoinz.biz) is now a spam website, please verify and remove the reference if deem necessary.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.52.19.197 (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad footnotes link 

message: Should be explained in the article. Fkbreitl (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  How were the coins issued? 

message: ‘From its introduction to the Republic, during the third century BC’
… as ‘From its introduction during the Republic, in the third century BC…’ 2001:8003:3020:1C00:44F1:85C9:436C:4A2E (talk) 07:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Might this be better… 

message: if 25 argentei are one aureus, and one argenteus itself is worth 100 denarii (all the other values until argenteus add up perfectly) -- then 25*100 denarii = 2500 denarii, but the table lists 1000,  aka 1 aureus == only 10 argentei, and all the other coin values in this row also speak of a factor of 10.
so, what is right now, the 1:25 rate, then all cells regarding the aureus are wrong, or the 1:10 rate and just the one cell has to be amended? 2A02:810D:8AC0:4C08:6437:366C:98BE:525F (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ERROR in the diecletian values table