Comments on: Coins of ancient Rome

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 01:06:20 +0000

Actually, “VIIII” WAS used as an alternative to “IX,” especially by the 9th legion.

By: bluearch

bluearch — Sat, 05 Mar 2011 03:27:36 +0000

Not if they are using an informal numerical system…you know nothing of roman society and yes, those are legit coins. Rome were not the prudes Americans are about sex.

By: nugelz

nugelz — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 18:25:50 +0000

those are fakes, VIIII should be writen as IX, dont be idiots and believe such utter garbage, I will commend the creator though, both for his impicable attention to detail and his lack fo shame

By: ScooterJ

ScooterJ — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 02:48:00 +0000

OMG. I’m just starting to collect coins. I wonder if you can get those coins in a mint set.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 11:41:30 +0000

For anyone else who stumbles across this post and can’t discern whether the coins are legitimate or not — they are.

They’re called Spintria. The wikipedia page can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spintria

And there is a nice Straight Dope article on them here:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2355/pay-for-play

By: Pervy Money « The Megnacarta

Pervy Money « The Megnacarta — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 06:43:26 +0000

[...] yes there are Blowjob coins according to this site. I cracked up when I saw this until I took a closer look and realize [...]

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:13:18 +0000

Sadly, while amusing, they are bogus. The roman numerals are wrong in several instances – although they have been used in this “wrong” nomenclature for watches; despite what the forger may have thought, not all Romans wore laurels on their heads; several of these fakes have mint stamps – look for the little tagged “S” – and Roman coins were stricken, not minted, and none bears a mark like that. None of them are nearly worn enough to have been circulated.

Like I said, amusing, but fake.

By: Jay Bird

Jay Bird — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 21:47:47 +0000

Reminds me of my first penny…….

By: falstaff

falstaff — Wed, 26 May 2010 21:32:27 +0000

> IIII isn’t right, it should be IV

Subtractive notation was introduced in the middle ages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals#IIII_and_IV

By: Subadai

Subadai — Wed, 26 May 2010 20:32:20 +0000

yup, the Romans have had it already figured out. Too bad the “Christians” were too zealous. Oh, i forgot ALL Monotheistic religions are way too zealous.