Relevantie zilvergehalte.. winst ? - relevance of silver content.. profit ?

[Goodies]

Deze thread is in het Engels, omdat de expert "adrianus" zich daarin het best kan uitdrukken. Hopelijk zullen (ook andere) forum deelnemers bereid zijn om commentaar te leveren en (mag tussendoor!) relevante muntjes en linkjes plaatsen.

De thread ontstond naar aanleiding van een discussie over de zeer interessante  Urbs Roma / Constantinopolis hybride van dabber. Naar aanleiding van deze munt ontstond een discussie over zilver-gehalte als criterium voor de beoordeling van een munt als barbaarse imitatie. Deelnemer adrianus beschikt over concrete metingen en zeer sterke aanwijzingen dat 3e-4e eeuwse barbaarse imitatie 0%   zilver bevat en dat dat een "hard" selectie-criterium is. Hieruit trekt hij ook de conclusie dat deze munten werden gemaakt uit winstbejag. Dat bestrijd ik (voor zolang ik dat kan volhouden! dit is een deskundige!) We leren elke dag bij..

This thread is in English, allowing the expert "adrianus" to express himself in a language we are all familiar with. This thread resulted from a side path about silver content, in a discussion about dabber's coin Urbs Roma / Constantinopolis hybride. adrianus convinced me of the validity of using 0% silver content as a valid criterium to designate a coin as non-official. Wether it is barbaric imitation and what the purpose was of the maker and how these coins might have played a role in circulation. To me, the sole purpose of making profit seems not enough to explain all finds, but maybe that opinion will fall as well. We learn every day.
red Lx

(..)

So you refer to "Mule" as only other criterium except style ? What do you mean ? When zero or near-zero silver content indicates barbaric imitation, a lot of later Roman coins we speak about on this forum would be "mules" at least. Silver-washed plating is very rare on these coins, we hardly see any traces of silver appear on 4th century coins. Don't know about analysis below 2 percent, did you ever investigate silver content of antoniniani ? moderator aurelianus made a table here, you can find it here. By the time of Claudius II, silver content was already down to 1.7 percent (17/1000) and we are before the mint reform of Diocletian. One thing Diocletian did not do is make better coins in terms of silver content.. they look good, but there is actually even less silver in these coins. Now I would not dare to draw conclusions on such small differences in measurements.

So in my view, your stylistic criteria appear on top of (or after) the metallurgic analysis. I agree with Gantois321 that near-zero silver content is also found on official coins.



Elagabalus, supposedly a DENARIUS

Do you judge this one as barbaric ? It has no silver (at all)

 
Lex

[adrianus]

Hi Lex,

Hi, I cannot see this Trier 'official' issue mule so I cannot comment. Like you, I would not trust RIC on this. As we have surely agreed, the original coin with its SIS[..] mark is an imitation.

I think there is a big difference between 15/1000 silver (the LOWEST BY A LONG WAY on the table shown) for a radiate of Tetricus equating to 1.5% and 0.1% (1/1000) for a Constantinian copy. This is the difference between an intentional silver content that is found in the late Roman argentiferous bronze alloys and a base metal alloy whee silver is present as a trace element only. I do not think a difference of 15 times (1500%) is a 'small difference in measurement!   I am not talking here about silver wash, I am talking about silver content obtained from drilling into the coin and obtaining a core sample. This is not affected by surface enrichment or surface corrosion but reflects accurately the alloy itself. Thus we know that Constantinian official issues had an intentional silver element (c1.5-2%) that could have easily been removed if the authorities did not wish it to be there whilst unofficial coins have silver as only a trace element (it is pointless to try to remove 0.1% silver from a copper alloy)
The Elagabalus denarius is a cast limes 'falschung' and so would not have any silver. I think these casts of denarii are very different in nature to radiate copies or Constantinian imitations
Regards,
Ardianus

[Goodies]

hi @adrianus, although I do not quite grasp your 1500x calculation, your line of thinking is that if only traces of silver are found (say 0.1%) it is certainly mule and probably barbaric (if appropriate with the type..  ). Which percentage do you regard normal for  silver intentionally added to an Urbs Roma coin by an official mint ?

So, question: it would be interesting to expand aurelianus' table into later times (Tetrarchy, Constantini). Can you provide us with a few reference measurement outcomes of the silver content of Urbs Roma official coins ? So that we are also able to compare this to your figure of 0.1%, because the difference between 1.5% and 0.1% is not 1500, but only 15.

As far as I know, silver was not removed from the alloy at any time. It was added to the coin material (flan) in such a way, that relatively more silver would reside just below the surface of the coin. Now when the coin was plated (that is.. silver-washed) this small amount of silver would surface and appear on the coin as a very thin layer (microns), which is subsequently worn out. That is the reason, why it seems improbable to me, that silver content of a circulated, late Roman coin found in the ground can be used for distinction of barbaric imitation.. that is, because we are not sure wether the coin still has its intended silver content.

My question was: in your research, do you stack the two conclusions, that is: first do the material analysis, concluding a piece is barbaric, and after that, the analysis (and conclusions) regarding style ? I ask this, because we've got the impression you call coins "barbaric" that we would classify as "official". You may be right of course, but I must admit that I was really suprised that you were able to find barbaric die-couplings.

I was also surprised to read that you attribute / single out certain style attributes to certain mints. Did you do much research on that before you started to look at barbaric imitation ? I find this a very interesting topic. Although a mint had several celators, you are right about certain similarities when comparing e.g. Lugdunum and Trier coins. Only thing.. is I've never been able to put a finger on that..

Thanks for confirming my Elagabalus is a Limes ! Did you know this particular coin is very common find around here ? There must have be tens of thousands in circulation on the northern Rhine Limes..

By the way, on this forum we have a translation table for numismatic terminology, click here. It might help you read ("decypher"  ) our submits.

 
Lex

[adrianus]

Hi Goodies and Dionysus 

I'll try to deal with all the points you raise 

SILVER CONTENT
The content of official coins (assuming they were official - not having seen them I can't comment certainly) was analysed by Cope. I will try to dig out the exact details but his analysis of core composition (i.e. the heart of a coin and not the surface) gave results of 1.5-2% silver. I will try to find the full results and let aureianus have them for his table. These analyses were carried out in the 60s and 70s I think.
The presence of a silver wash is caused by 'surface enrichment'. If you dip a copper alloy coin in urine, vinegar, lemon juice or other acids, those acids will dissolve the copper molecules on the surface but leave the silver. This results in a silver sheen which will, however, quickly rub off. It is important to note that, although this will mean that the surface of the coin will have a higher content of silver (until the very top surfave gets worn) for a very short time, it does not affect the core of the coin. Silver is not being pulled out of the core of a coin but rather copper on the very surface of the coin is being removed. That is why core samples are best and why surface analysis can be unreliable. The cores of official coins still have 1.5%-2% silver throughout - barbarous coins have only about 0.1% because they never had a meaningful level of silver in the first place

STYLE-SILVER
No, I have been working on my stylistic analyses for years - the metallurgical analyses are comparatively recent. The metallurgical analyses have backed up the stylistic attributions. It would not be much of a challenge to cut up coins and then say 'that one must have been barbarous...' 
As for die-couplings, I have looked at so many of these coins (I have over 800 wolf and twins copies alone in my collection) and have looked at so many in museum collections it's not surprising I've found so many. The current total is just over 200 links.

OFFICIAL MINTS STYLE
Yes, I did a lot of work on official styles before I looked at the imitations. Andrew Burnett also looked at this in a paper in British Museum Occasional Papers (I will post the references later). Trier and Lyons particularly stand out. Interestingly Trier's styles are initially different in each workshop whilst Lyons shares the same style - we can conclude by this I think that Trier's workshop each had their own engravers whilst Lyons' workshops were supplied from a common source.

I hope this clarifies some of my points and thanks for the translation tip. It's a pleasure to correspond on such tough questions 
Regards,
Adrianus

[Goodies]

O..kay.. thanks for that elaborate answer to all my stupid questions. I'm just a scientist lost in the woods of industrial programming, not a professional numismatic. It sounds like your knowledge is very profound, what could I say about..

The presence of a silver wash is caused by 'surface enrichment'. If you dip a copper alloy coin in urine, vinegar, lemon juice or other acids, those acids will dissolve the copper molecules on the surface but leave the silver. This results in a silver sheen which will, however, quickly rub off. It is important to note that, although this will mean that the surface of the coin will have a higher content of silver (until the very top surfave gets worn) for a very short time, it does not affect the core of the coin. Silver is not being pulled out of the core of a coin but rather copper on the very surface of the coin is being removed

Although the fact that the bronze is resolved was mensioned before, by aurelianus in this thread about plated coins, we were not aware of the fact that such small amount of silver (1.5% - 2%) is enough to have a proper silver look. We assumed that the flan was made heterogenious (more silver on the sides). Appearently, that needs not to be so. Also, you repeat stating the number of 1.5% for Urbs, so I take that is common silver content for these later coins. Looking forward to see more.. For instance, do you have any of such data for the large Tetrarchy folles ? sometimes the silver seems very thick on these coins.

No, I have been working on my stylistic analyses for years - the metallurgical analyses are comparatively recent. The metallurgical analyses have backed up the stylistic attributions.

Interesting. You must have a good nose for these attributions. In the process, did you make any distinction between forgeries  created by corrupt Roman coiners (e.g. the Felicissimus uprising) and barbaric "mules", as you call these ? do you regard barbaric imitations as contemporary forgeries, or as coins that were actually welcomed by the Romans because of small money shortage ?

Trier's styles are initially different

Initially, f.e. in Diocletianus' time this has been observed (can't remember the thread). About Trier and Lyons I found some calendar dates, that is Trier is a much younger mint (around 270), and two dates are mensioned (cited below), could 295 be the transition were its independent styles of seperate officinae was abandoned ? For instance, with its growth , the Trier mint aquired (or was able to train !) its artists, in order to let them conform more precisely to the style that was centrally prescribed ?

Mint: TRIER (Germany)
Trier may have been a mint during the AD 270s. From the time of the reforms of the emperor Diocletian (AD 295) onwards it was one of the most important mints for the supply of copper alloy coinage to Britain.

Mint: LYONS (France)
It is generally accepted that the mint at Lyons produced gold and silver coinage during the reigns of Augustus, Tiberius and Gaius (Caligula) and copper alloy coinage during the reigns of Nero and the Flavians. At this time there were no mintmarks and coins are attributed to the mint on the basis of their style (including features such as the addition of a globe at the base of the bust. Although the mint may have been active for brief periods in the 3rd century, it was during the 4th century that it was most active. A great deal of copper alloy coinage that circulated in Britain came from Lyons.

Source of this info: www.finds.org.uk - Mintmarks

 
Goodies


Great thread.. thread of The Year..

[adrianus]

Hi all,

Yes, the silver would show very briefly even at 1.5% though it would be very quickly worn off. As far as I know, it is impossible to create flans with a higher proportion of silver in the outer areas other than by plating which is of course a different matter entirely.

This question of origin is interesting. I do not think there is any evidence for illicit production of bronze coins by mint workers in the 330s/340s. I would also be very careful about using the Felicissimus source - this occurs in the Historia Augusta which, although interesting is a very dubious source. There was undoubtedly something going on in c270 at the Rome mint but I don't think we'll ever get to the bottom of it
What I personally believe is that copying started out in the early 330s (hoards to c335, where they have imitations present, these imitations are of large size and good style) as a way of waking a profit (represented by the silver content and slightly lighter weight of the coins - most larger copies are c1.7-2.2g as against the 2.45ish standard of official issues). This copying then intensifies massively in the period c335-40, helped by the successive reductions in weight of the official issues in the late 330s/early 340s. As with the radiate copying epidemic the supply creates a need which feeds on itself Anyway, the full-scale production is mostly caused by a demans for low-value coin (interestingly we have cut-up official coins both of Urbs Roma and also Fel Temp types - but that is another story )
When I said 'initially different', what I was referring to is the fact that later on in VR (particularly in the last 2 marks, wreath/TRP and branch/TRP) about half of the 1st workshop dies are supplied by the engraver of workshop 2 - a long absence for sickness?). Thus the clear cut differences become blurred as one workshop's dies become mixed with those produced by another. I wasn't talking about the earlier history of Trier (i.e. before 330)
The question of the mints of Trier and Lyons is worth another thread. Both mints are well-established by 330 (and I think their past history is pretty much irrelevant here) but the interesting thing here is that Trier starts in 330 straight away (with first issue variants) - Lyons does not seem to be striking the type until a few months later. I have come across obverses of VR coins (particularly in the large hoard found last year near Bristol currently being sorted at the British Museum) that have great stylistic similarities. The marks of these are TR.P and PLG - the first marks of each mint. I suspect that Trier was working in 330 (1 May onwards) but Lyons was not. To speed up Lyons' production (when production started) an engraver was sent there from the already established mint at Trier. I need photos for this and anyway it's another thread
Anyway, my partner is calling me for dinner  >:  ( so I will put up those references I mentioned earlier later
Regards,
Adrianus

[adrianus]

Hi all, those references:

Adelson H. L. (very out of date in his ideas!) 'The bronze alloys of the later Roman empire' ANSMN VI, 1954

Clay, T. Metallurgy and Metallography in Numismatics' NEA XVII, 1988

Cope L. The metallurgical development of the Roman Imperial coinage during the first five centuries AD Unpublished D. Phil thesis, Oxford, 1975

Of these Cope is by far the most thorough. Unfortunately, the only copy I know of is in Oxford's Ashmolean Library which is currently closed for many months

For Burnett's article on style see-

Burnett, A. M. 'The Chorleywood and Hamble hoards', in Recent coin hoards from Roman Britain, British Museum Occasional Papers no. 5, 1979, Carson and Burnett eds.

Regards,

Adrianus

[Goodies]

I would also be very careful about using the Felicissimus source - this occurs in the Historia Augusta which, although interesting is a very dubious source. There was undoubtedly something going on in c270 at the Rome mint but I don't think we'll ever get to the bottom of it

Thanks for that info, from this point l will avoid talking about Antoniniani in this context. For your information and amusement (probably  ) we have had a thread about an (alledged) Felicissimus related coin, we found sources that attribute certain types of Divo Claudius II (eagle and altar) to Felicissimus' workers. Please don't hesitate digging up that thread by posting a reply. By the way sorry that moderator, expert and friend "aurelianus" is currently not available. He is actually very interested but cannot find time to participate at the moment..

What I personally believe is that copying started out in the early 330s (hoards to c335, where they have imitations present, these imitations are of large size and good style) as a way of waking a profit (represented by the silver content and slightly lighter weight of the coins - most larger copies are c1.7-2.2g as against the 2.45ish standard of official issues). This copying then intensifies massively in the period c335-40, helped by the successive reductions in weight of the official issues in the late 330s/early 340s. As with the radiate copying epidemic the supply creates a need which feeds on itself  Anyway, the full-scale production is mostly caused by a demans for low-value coin (interestingly we have cut-up official coins both of Urbs Roma and also Fel Temp types - but that is another story )

I do not believe that barbaric coins that we normally see here have to do with making profit of any kind. If we follow your line of thinking, I doubt wether Romans were prepared to exchange these for official silvered coins.

Also, the differences in size and style are often very large, not subtle. Click for a really wild (and.. recent! yesterday!) radius.

Let's do a tour of related coins, I'll put a few links here. Now this is the 4th century, have you seen Gert's coin ? Also, his previous example ?
And the late type III that Dabber shows at the moment, featuring a diademe that looks like a Turkish Fez.. or.. a radius.. And his Urbs you already classified as official..

The portrait and reverse on these late coins indicate a very clumbsy celator. Technically, it can be seen that the die was cut using a single cutter. Most barbaric coins that appear on this forum do not show craftsmanship in handling the instrument, nor the ability to read/write. Maybe the die was cut in a (much!) shorter time. These coins are technologically inferior and can be clearly and visually distinguished from the official examples. The drawing and shaping of faces and figures is different, that is, culturally different, from their Roman counterparts or example coins. We have seen examples of Celtic and even  Germanic styles, where the Roman coin is taken and copied, but not quite copied: it is interpreted, like an artist would do.

In my view, this is proof that either 1) the Romans did not regard these coins as "mules" or 2) the coins were simply ignored, or not used at all by Romans. The latter seems improbable to me, because barbarous coins are often found mixed up with official coins.

I wonder, wether in the case of Urbs Roma, e.g. the die-links you showed in your famous thread, the style differences are subtle. They could very well origin from real coin-forgerers (that is criminals), possibly of Roman origin, the dies made with the help of (corrupt?) official celators. For instance, you refer to the shape of the stars. To be honest, we never (needed to) look at such details, assuming that these coins were not made by tribes, but by Romans. Who might have profited, indeed. When we can hardly see the difference using 21st century flatscreen monitor equipment in 4x magnified state, how were Romans ever supposed to have recognized them..

 
Lex


(in deze bijdrage plaats ik enige kritische kanttekeningen bij het gebruik van de term "mule" en "making profit" voor deze munten. Barbaarse imitatie-muntslag is volgens mij  een noodzakelijke bezigheid, wellicht circuleerde dit (4e eeuwse) geld zelfs uitsluitend lokaal in de dorpen. Daarbij geef ik enige links naar relevante threads)

[adrianus]

Hi Lex,

"I do not believe that barbaric coins that we normally see here have to do with making profit of any kind. If we follow your line of thinking, I doubt wether Romans were prepared to exchange these for official silvered coins."

My point with profit was that the largest of these coins (which hoard evidence strongly implies are the earliest [c330-5]) were produced to make some profit. Similar effects to silvering can be obtained by heating coins so that the lead 'sweats' to the surface. Try overheating a 3rd/4th century coin on the ring of an electric cooker and see what happens - the lead comes to the surface and you get a silvery colour. Thus at first (until the silvery lead coating was worn away large imitations could have looked as good as official coins. The fact they had no silver represents, as I have said earlier, the profit.
No private person  is going to make coins for the sake of it! There MUST be some motive for the production of imitations.

As for size and style, yes they can vary wildly. You can get large imitations of good style, large imitations of bad style, small imitations of good style etc. It just depends on several variables. Your point on cultural styles is interesting but surely at an artistic level any imitation is an interpretation

In my view, this is proof that either 1) the Romans did not regard these coins as "mules"

I don't think I have ever said that I thought the Romans regarded these coins as mules - in any case the term mule is a modern one. To the Romans using them these were coins - I don't believe they ever really made a distinction.

The identity of the better celators is an interesting question. Some may have been official die-engravers 'moonlighting' for extra profit but we cannot prove this either way. On the official side, does the way there is a decline in the style of official coins from 330-5 mean that die-engravers were being paid per die and so cut dies as quickly as they could since there was no incentive to do the job well (apart from personal satisfaction)?

For instance, you refer to the shape of the stars. To be honest, we never (needed to) look at such details, assuming that these coins were not made by tribes, but by Romans. Who might have profited, indeed. When we can hardly see the difference using 21st century flatscreen monitor equipment in 4x magnified state, how were Romans ever supposed to have recognized them..

The coins were certainly produced and used by Romans. The shape of the stars, for example, might not seem important to us (and I agree the Romans couldn't have cared less) but if we are trying to isolate official from imitation such small details can prove very important. There is no grey area - these coins are either official or unofficial - they cannot be both. I would argue that any small hints that can point us one way or the other are useful. And if you have good eyes you don't need a 4x magnification monitor 

Regards,

Adrianus

[Goodies]

Dear adrianus,

Meanwhile I have opened a question thread about Roman coin weighing, this thread.. you never know what comes out of the ground and there exist a few experts on the topic of coin weighing on this forum. Moreover, "coinwate" prefers to write.. in English.

Please allow me to comment on

The fact they had no silver represents, as I have said earlier, the profit.  No private person  is going to make coins for the sake of it! There MUST be some motive for the production of imitations.

  Indeed, from a commercial perspective, the silver content (or silvery appearance) relates  the value of the coin in circulation and what it's worth as an object. From the merchants perspective, the coin should (only) be reasonable and acceptable.  From the issuers perspective, the actual silver content represents a major part of the value of the coin. Therefore, the issuer, in this case the state, as well as the local tribe, would profit, certainly in the modern economical sense of the word. All supposed, 1) the two economies are linked in some way and 2) Romans ignored the differences in daily circulation.

I often wonder in what way the Romans would accept these imitations. Did they collect taxes  transporting huge amounts of bronze ? I don't think so. This is small money. Now if it was ever accepted, it is more logical to suppose, that it simply remained in circulation and that it would mix up with the official coins at the lowest level. This is also what we see in the finds. So let's suppose the two assumptions stated above hold and we agree there was profit.

At this point, immediately assuming that "profit" was the primary incentive to issue these coins, seems a step too far to me. Especially when looking at barbaric imitation originating from non-Roman sources. And I also object to the term "private person" here. We should take into account, that these "hoard" communities could very well have had some form of local authority very able to make decisions about issuing change money for local purposes. See below my comment on coins being part of a cultural integration effort (the Gallo-Romanic transition).

You can get large imitations of good style, large imitations of bad style, small imitations of good style etc.

On this forum we regard good style is something that could be non-Roman as well. As for size, we saw remarkable examples of smaller coins, e.g.  Ahenobarbus - Theodora barbaric

As you stated, the origin and makers of these coins are actually unclear. Maybe we should attempt to make a theory about the circulation itself, first. For instance, a plausible scenario would be that these coins primarily circulated in some local community, eventually "escaping" from local circulation. Like 18th century Geurnsy Pennies that would escape from the island to the English main land, with merchants start quarreling about the relative exchange value.

Suppose, barbaric coins only gradually reached non-local circulation. This explains, for instance, why these worn out radiate minimi and minissimi (late radiates) were found mixed with Constantini coins. Official coinage is shrinking, eventually matching the size of the imitation coins. From that point, the imitation coin starts to circulate unnoticed.

Maybe this is a wild idea, but could it be so, that it is a representative of gradual cultural integration ? These "tribes" or "hoards" as we so easily  label these communities, were confronted with the Roman accomplishments, like water supply, small bronze currency, sophisticated clothing and tried to copy the Roman way of life. Founds are known in Europe of Gallic  buildings with Roman pillars. Maybe the incentive was to copy Roman coins out of a certain admiration for the coin itself and an urge to copycat the Roman system ?

Allow me to conclude with some links to 4th century pieces we have encountered..

Gladius - Constans

Gert - Magnentius

Denis49 - Magnentius

Togirix - Emperor spearing

Togirix - Constantinopolis Victory

And last but not least according to the finder, Gladius - Barbaartje type III is supposed to be a Julianus II radius with Apis bull remains 

 
Goodies

[adrianus]

Hi Lex,

In my view, there are 2 reasons for the production of imitations in the 3rd and 4th centuries. One is shoratge of official coin, the second the chance for producers of these coins to make a small profit. The use of these coins in the short term is undeniable - they are an important part of the monetary system. They do not occur largely in earlier (pre337) hoards, however,because hoarders prefer good coins of large size - large and good style imitations slip through the net but small imitations don't - if you're hoarding coins you hoard the best ones around.
Let us leave the questions of style and profit for a while, however.
The important point I think we should concentrate on (from your last posting ) is who produced these copies. When you use terms like 'tribes' and refer to people copying Roman accomplishments, I'm unsure who you think produced these imitations. Let me put my views forward  :

It cannot have been 'barbarian tribes' who were responsible. These coins are found within the borders of the Roman empire not outside them. If they were produced outside the empire by tribes looking towards Roman ideals of art etc. we would find them outside (in 'Free' Germany etc.) We do not.
Any 'barbarians' living within the empire would have been by this date (after Caracalla's edict of 213) Roman citizens. The term 'barbarous' is an old-fashioned term used because it used to be thought that these coins were produced by barbarians after the fall of the Roman empire. We use it because it is convenient and everybody understands what is meant by a 'barbarous' coin. This does not mean that 'barbarians' (however you define them) were producing these coins in emulation of Roman ideas. People in 4th century Roman Gaul were Romanised - they were not copying the Roman way of life - they were a part of it (look at the coins of the Gallic empire )

I am not saying here that local artistic styles do not find their way onto these coins but that these are local provincial styles such as one also finds on local sculpture for example.   

Finally, these coins circulate a great deal - I will post my map of die-links on a separate thread soon (its file size is currently too big to fit) - but I have die-links across Britain and one between Nethe Compton (Dorset, England) and Dalheim in Belgium. These coins did circulate widely and they did so soon after production.

Regards,

Adrianus

[aurelianus]

Dear adrianus and Goodies,
Thank you for this very interesting thread, I wasn’t able to read it sooner.
In RIC VII appendix I, page 79-86, it says that the silver percentage at the time of Constantine I of the whole coin is mostly 1 % core.
The surface composition is silver 65 %, Copper 15%, Tin 15%, Lead 5%. Though there is much difference between the compositions in coins, in the different cities where there was coinage.
In Treveri there was in the period 309-313 A.D a coinage that contained only traces of silver (in the core?)
Later on RIC VIII page 60 – 66 the “Fel temp reparation” types possibly called de “centenionalis (communis)” the silver compositions, differed according to Cope:
324 – 330: 1,87%
330 – 335: 1,00%
336 – 337: 1,26%
337 – 341: 1,14%
341 – 348: 0,37 %
The AE 2 official “Maiorina”,348 – 354 differed according to Cope
Large 5,26 g: 2,53 %
Small 4,25 g: 1,11%
AE 3   2,42 g: 0,22 %

Magnentius (350 – 353):
The AE 2 official “Maiorina”, differed according to Cope
Large
Felicitas: 5,07g. 2,49%
Gloria:              1,58%
Victoria: 4,59 – 4,21 g 1,11 %
Salus large 8,33 g. 0,00%
Salus medium 6,67 g. 0,00%
Salus small 4,46 g. 0,00%
Salus Aug nostril    0,51%
Small AE 2   3,63 g: 0,00 %

Constantius II (350 – 361)
The AE 2 official “Maiorina”, differed according to Cope
Large 5,30 g: 0,79 %
Small 4,34 g: 0,44%
AE 3   2,48 g: 0,58 %
AE 3  (M) 2,26 g: 0,45 %
AE 3  (Spes) 1,96 g: 0,06 %

Greetings A