Steppenfool

I barely win anything at auction. I have lost patience with the whole process. I am the second highest bidder on almost every coin I attempt to buy. I can no longer be bothered with the time and effort that has to be spent on finding out the Buyers Premium, Shipping Costs/Method and then factoring that into my bids. I find (like others) that to maximize your chances you need to watch the auction live and bid as it is closing. That is quite a substantial time investment and can be quite hard to schedule around life commitments, especially when your lots are separated by an hour or two. I remember one instance, during a more enthusiatic period, when I had to schedule one of my breaks at work to coincide with an auction. I also find that the prices of coins with even a modicum of uniqueness or history are ever increasing, which leads to me often being outbid against my expectations. Unfortunately I don't have a great deal of spare capital right now, so I feel I am getting priced out despite all the effort and energy that auctions take. I much prefer someone telling me how much they want to sell the coin for, and I decide whether I want to pay it. There are only two coins that I am desperate for and would bid at auction in attempt to acquire, absorbing all of these issues in the process.

Was the second highest bidder on the Commodus as Hercules and the Hadrian TELLVS. I have won one coin in the last 12 months or so, and not through lack of trying. I think the market is a bit too competitive for my measly budget right now.

People have already mentioned the 476 gaffe which is a persistent anachronism. Paragraph 2: I have a problem with "Germanic tribes in the North, and Nomadic tribes in the East" as it presents a false dichotomy. The main nomadic threat was obviously the Huns, and they certainly caused problems in the East, but they wreaked havoc all over the Empire invading Italy and Gaul. I suppose they arrived from an Eastern direction so it's not a horrific error. Paragraph 3: "A series of weak and ineffective rulers". I feel this point is quite overstated when it comes to the acute fall of the Empire and puts the cart (or court in this case) before the horse. The whole Western Empire truly began to unravel during the reign of Honorious which spanned 30 years. It was under him that the central government collapsed and led to factional infighting among members of the Imperial court. Honorious has Stilicho put to death and massacres the foedorati 15 years before he dies. I feel Honorious created a situation where a politically unifed Western empire was impossible. Paragraph 4: It is much more complex that Odoacer capturing the territory therefore that's the Romans eliminated as if it's a video game. Odoacer was considered both by himself, the senate and the Eastern Emperor Zeno as a Roman client king. Odoacer's successor Theodoric was actually acting Zeno's orders when he defeated Odoacer and enjoyed a similar (and more equal) collegiate standing with the Eastern Emperor. The conclusion is fair, although we certainly inherited much more!

Great coin and perhaps evidence for an early advertisement of the divine origin of the Gens. "As it became the fashion in the later times of the Republic to claim a divine origin for the most distinguished of the Roman gentes, it was contended that Iulus, the mythical ancestor of the race, was the same as Ascanius, the son of Aeneas, and founder of Alba Longa. Aeneas was, in turn, the son of Venus and Anchises. The dictator Caesar frequently alluded to the divine origin of his race, as, for instance, in the funeral oration which he pronounced when quaestor over his aunt Julia, and in giving Venus Genetrix as the word to his soldiers at the battles of Pharsalus and Munda; and subsequent writers and poets were ready enough to fall in with a belief which flattered the pride and exalted the origin of the imperial family." You'll also find Cupid on the Prima Porta statue of the divine Augustus for the same reason!

To be fair, the only time I have ever been fooled (to my knowledge) was an LRB of Constantine with Head of Sol reverse. Coin was in bad condition and there was nothing about it on the usual fake resources. The inductive inference using the above premises was obviously faulty, but I'd never encountered it failing me so far. It was only when I saw an exact copy come up for sale the next day that I realised my mistake and requested a refund. That would have been £15 profit for a forger! Of course, it was immediately relisted despite communicating my concerns and showing the identical specimen.

Hadrian ADOPTIO denarius. I missed out on this cheap example (£70) about a year ago by hesitating (for a mere 12 hours) due to condition and MONETA has punished me ever since by not offering an affordable example ANYWHERE since. I presume that part of the hurt and irritation comes from the fact there hasn't even been any examples to reject. Instead, there has been a complete absence of availability which makes me regret the one that got away even more.

Postumus did nothing wrong and his coinage reflects the beauty of his soul. Philip and Decius's reigns are an under appreciated golden age of Roman Imperial coinage. Julian's bull reverse was the last interesting Roman Imperial coin. Byzantine coinage is objectively ugly, to deny this is to be an aesthetic antirealist. If the mythological interpretation of Constantine's DAFNE coinage is correct (which I believe it is), then it is one of the most significant coins ever produced. Hobbyists regular reluctance to explicitly mention the price of their purchases is a loss for the community. It helps to be aware what experienced collectors consider good value! A lot of dealers don't put enough effort into their listing. If I'm prepared to drop a few hundred pounds on a coin I expect a detailed attribution and some historical context. I've seen £5000 aurei listed with one line of text in the description.

My favourite type of photo is a high quality camera shot with the "real" background still present. I think the fake backgrounds add an element of uncanniness sometimes. This is especially true of plain white. To me it's kind of like if you try and view things in real life when covering one eye. I don't know what's going on optically, or of it's all in my head though. I really liked the technique some other posters used of mounting the coin on a pillar and taking shots with a high quality camera. It really aids in combating the superficial nature of some photos by creating a 3D effect. Below is how Numisart on MAShops displays their coins, I think the shadows and slight angle of the shot really give a sense of depth and subsequently the relief of the coin and shape of the flan. No doubt someone will tell me this is all clever computer work and I'll look silly. 😂

I think I spot a Verus in between a Faustina II and a Pius towards the bottom right of the pile

My rule was "Emperors that ruled for over two years (and notable exceptions)" which makes things a lot easier! Nowadays I long to be captivated by a particular emperor. I'm enamoured by the knowledge that specialists of particular rulers show on this forum, and I would like to eventually fill a niche in a similar fashion.

The difficulty in answering these types of questions is that the Roman Empire lasted between 500 and 1500 years depending on one's reckoning. The political/social/cultural/military systems changed drastically a handful of times times, and changed significantly a multitude of times. Furthermore, quite a lot of the specifics of the Empire aren't recorded particularly clearly due to the tradition of narrative history. As a result, a substantial amount of research, puzzlework and even speculation are often required to even answer basic questions about things such as command structure. Evidence such as the primary narrative texts, inscriptions, laws, archeology are all used as evidence to try and form a coherent model. It is therefore prudent to limit precise questions to particular time periods and to read the academic literature on the subject. Of course there is often a basic popular account of how things were and transpired that is accepted by many people. However often when the surface is scratched and the actual evidence is examined, it becomes clear we do not really know that much for certain. This is also the reason that Roman historical facts and theories are regularly revised in light of new evidence or historiography. An example of the difficulty we have is the innovation of splitting the Roman force into two distinct groups, the mobile field army called the Comitatenses, and the border guard called the Limitanei. We are unsure who exactly is responsible for this, and the specifics of the reform. Diocletian and Constantine I both receive the credit for this in various circles, and some speculate that the change was started earlier and only consolidated by the aforementioned emperors.

WTF WHY ARE THE TETRARCHS SACRIFICING ON A JULIA DOMNA

Septimus Severus Denarius. ROME 209 AD. SEVERVS PIVS AVG, laureate head right / P M TR P XVII COS III P P, Jupiter standing left, holding thunderbolt and sceptre, two children (Geta and Caracalla) to left and right. RIC 226 RSC 525. My latest purchase has arrived all the way from Hungary. I was musing over what Septimius Severus coin to buy as an improvement on my old one. I wanted something that was interesting historically and was struggling to find anything outside of references to wars! The INCARTH issues are quite interesting and were a close contender, but this one really fascinated me. Septimius Severus reign produced other Jupiter coins, but only from 209 onwards do they begin to have the two children accompanying them. These children have been identified with Caracalla and Geta, making it an important dynastic issue and an affordable way to get the father and his two sons on a single Imperial coin. The reason for the addition of two children is probably the slightly younger Geta's promotion to Augustus that year. Interestingly, there are no Imperial issues (I think?) with a single child or two children during the ten years of Caracalla's tenure as Augustus between 198-209 with Geta accompanying as Caesar. Furthermore the sons were 21 and 20, making their representations on this coin odd. This also raises the question why Geta had to wait so much longer for his promotion to Augustus despite only being one year younger. Was Severus aware of his upcoming death on the island of Britain in 211? The sources imply he was very unwell with Dio stating that during the 208 invasion of Britain "he actually was conveyed in a covered litter most of the way, on account of his infirmity". Why did he suddenly want another Augustus, are Dio's rumours of Severus' suspicion of Caracalla true to the point he scrambled to make Geta a co-Augustus for him instead of leaving him as mere Caesar? Dio states that "Antoninus was causing him alarm and endless anxiety by his intemperate life, by his evident intention to murder his brother if the chance should offer, and, finally, by plotting against the emperor himself". Conversely, was the promotion always planned, and did Severus' ill health serve only to hasten it? I also wonder about the difference in Severus' eyes between issues. In my issue we have the more bulging, Marcus Aurelius style philosopher eyes, yet Severus is usually depicted with quite beady, less alert or more severe eyes as shown in the linked example below. Is there discussion of this anywhere or is it simply the whims of engravers? I believe all eye types can be found at the Rome mint. There's a later issue of this coin with BRIT on the obverse legend from two years later (210 CE, after the British invasion concludes) that appeared on ma-shops shortly after my purchase, and this issue encapsulates the story even more satisfactorily and has a nicer obverse. I console myself with the fact it was 33% more expensive and the reverse was less detailed. I attach the link for that one here in case someone else wishes to take advantage. Feel free to add any thoughts on this issue, or to post your subtly interesting coins!

Lovely coin. I love the siliqua with the characteristic dark toning. The blockier art style and the toning really exemplifies the transition into chaos and eventually the middle ages! I've found myself rambling a bit about history below, so fair warning to avoid for those who are only here for the coins. I personally don't own any of Theodosus, with my collection stopping at 363. _____________________________________________________________________ I do find myself defending Theodosius regularly in online circles. My main critique of his reign is that he died at a really inopportune time. I actually don't think the timing could have been much worse. He had only recently united the Roman Empire in another bloody civil war, meaning that strong administration was needed to steady the recently depleted ship and consolidate the rival factions. Furthermore, he had only recently eliminated what would have been a talented and experienced Western regime that could have inherited the empire had he died a short time earlier. The fallout from his portentous demise was that two children were destined to inherit a chaotic and divided empire. Of course, this is not his fault but it really is astonishingly poor timing. My other heavy critique is the way that his dealings with the Western usurpations were handled. You communicate quite effectively the humming and hawing that Theodosius seems to have done before being persuaded somewhat weakly to engage in total war. I feel either Magnus Maximus and Eugenius could have been accepted as junior Augustus and the empire would have benefited long term. Of course, the counter-argument is that family dynasties had produced (relative) Imperial stability since the days of Constantine's sole reign beginning in 324 and perhaps this was now in the Roman conscious. I also think the whole debacle with Ambrose set an awful precedent of bishopric intrusion into Imperial politics. Although the bishops were always troublemakers, they were scarcely troublemakers outside of ecclesiastical matters, and emperors like Constantius II were very heavy handed in their response to bishops who tried to overstep ecclesiastical boundaries and assert political will. I think Theodosius relenting to Ambrose set the stage for more religiously inclined emperors who were greatly influenced by the Christian ecclesiastical power bloc, perhaps at the expense of the empire's management and well-being. In a way, Diocletian's concerns about Christianity being a parallel society at odds with the Empire were somewhat justified by this event. The above penance is especially troubling when it seems the Imperial response (although not the severity or the scale) in Thessaloniki was at least somewhat justified. Butheric the magister militum, correctly jailed someone for a crime and refused to yield to the crowd and commit an injustice by releasing him. The crowd then killed Butheric and presumably some other military personnel. A city revolt that results in the slaying of a high ranking military official almost certainly demands violent curtailing by the Emperor. Of course, the reports indicate the violence got incredibly out of hand, but whether this is Theodosius' responsibility is seriously up for debate in my opinion. Furthermore, if Butheric was indeed a Goth as his name may imply, we may be looking at civilian intolerance of Gothic influence. Gothic integration was a cornerstone of Theodosius' management of the terrible situation post-Adrianople and a civilian rejection of that (either actual or implied) could not be accepted. We see how precarious this situation could be as anti-barbarian sentiment flourished in the aftermath. In 398 Synesius in books 14 and 15 of De Regno perhaps communicates a popular notion: In 408 upon the death of Stilicho, Honorius gives in to various paranoias and orders the massacre of the foederati families which prompts large amounts of Germans/Goths to flock to Alaric, who will then sack the city. With all these things considered, I tend to take a more nuanced view on the massacre at Thessaloniki. A violent Imperial response was justified and in line with Theodosius' potentially volatile (but unavoidable) policy of integration to achieve Imperial stability. The tragedy is the sheer scale and degree of the violence, which it is doubtful that Theodosius is actually responsible for.

With the raised arm, I'm now beginning to think the veil might be a red herring and it's scratches and/or the downward hair detail on a laureate bust?

Looks like a Divus issue from the Tetrarchy/Constantine era Thought it might have been one of the below early AETERNA PIETAS issues from Constantine II before he dropped it and opted for the chariot of Constantius II mints. The 23mm size destroys that theory though.

Elagabalus is obvious. The one with the deity "ELAGAB" referred to on the reverse. No other emperor has their nickname alluded to on a coin. Here we see Elagabalus sacrificing to the Emesan solar god Elagab, whom he tried elevate to the top of the Roman pantheon and caused some mischief for the cause. My example was cheap and a bit worse for wear. The reverse dies on these examples tend to have been quite worn. SACERD DEI SOLIS ELAGAB These examples also have the famous Horn of Elagabalus on the portrait. Presumably some kind of Emesan ritual attire, some speculate it is a bull's phallus.

Got a Justinian Follis I bought ages ago for £12 but it's way outside my collecting scope and I don't get joy from its possession. Tried selling on eBay but having problems with buyers and would prefer to give it so someone who would appreciate it rather than accept a terribly low offer and/or go through sales hassle. Any Byzantine collectors here fancy it? Preferably UK collectors for easier shipping but I'll take the risk internationally if there's no UK takers. 35mm, Year 19 (545/6), SBCV 163.

Although it probably won't garner as many mentions as some of the more detailed and interesting coins, the portrait of Titus on the Flavian really jumped out at me. He actually looks like Vespasian's son (i.e. only half a Vespasian with likeness from half of another female person too!) rather than simply a younger Vespasian which is how he appears on Imperial issues. I would bet that it's a very realistic portrait. I absolutely love the Macrinus, the detail and spectacle of that coin seems more appropriate for a gold medallion than a provincial bronze. Strange too because he fought an inconclusive battle at Nisibis and had to pay tribute to the Parthians. Given the portrait looks fairly like Caracalla, I'm wondering if this issue was engraved in preparation of his triumphant return from Persia? I'll also stick a mention in for being educated about how that particular serpent probably isn't Glycon. It's a bittersweet learning moment, as I do love Lucian's work where he dismantles the puppet and its master, and this information will make acquiring a coin of Glycon harder! I will have to make sure to be extra careful that I actually get one that is indeed Glycon.

I will always appreciate and enjoy these, keep them coming! Congratulations on it being featured in an exhibition too.

I was surprised that it was so late in his reign. He has the same eyes as Marcus there!

Does the Pansa clan win the award for best moneyer? That serpent chariot is fascinating.

@ambr0zie I'm in the same boat with regards to being captivated by the interesting designs. I actually discovered this type because I was looking for a Silenos coin as I love the "Wisdom of Silenos" mythological event mentioned in Plutarch's Moralia and attributed to Aristotle. I quote it below: Midas, after hunting, asked his captive Silenus somewhat urgently, what was the most desirable thing among humankind. At first he could offer no response, and was obstinately silent. At length, when Midas would not stop plaguing him, he erupted with these words, though very unwillingly: 'you, seed of an evil genius and precarious offspring of hard fortune, whose life is but for a day, why do you compel me to tell you those things of which it is better you should remain ignorant? For he lives with the least worry who knows not his misfortune; but for humans, the best for them is not to be born at all, not to partake of nature's excellence; not to be is best, for both sexes. This should be our choice, if choice we have; and the next to this is, when we are born, to die as soon as we can.' It is plain therefore, that he declared the condition of the dead to be better than that of the living. In the midst of searching for a Silenos, I widened my search to "satyr" types. Then after losing out on one at Naville, I stumbled across this on eBay. I know that there is a Mask of Pan/Silenos variant from Pansa's father and I hope to get one of them eventually. They are very expensive however. Like you say, it seems Republican denarii represent a trove of historical and cultural knowledge if you don't assume they are all Head of Roma types! @jdmKY Your Pan coin is beautiful and looks a lot more human/life-like than my example. Mine definitely looks like it belongs in a theatre but yours for more serious religious rites! Lovely gold touch to it too gives it a divine air.

Every single coin in my collection is a Roman Imperial between the years of 70AD and 363AD. For the first time I have stepped out of this boundary, and even beyond the category of "Roman Imperial". This type has fascinated me for some time due to its historicity, but derives a piquancy from other aspects too! I paid £51 for this coin on an eBay auction (aulusplautius) and was surprised at the lack of competition I faced. I'd recently lost out on a lower quality example at the recent Naville auction, so I was keen to seize this opportunity. The date of 48 BCE should be enough to raise the interest of anyone concerned with history. This coin was minted in the same year that the Battle of Pharsalus occurred, the battle that proved decisive for a Caesarian victory in the Civil War. Caius Vibius Pansa Caetronianus was the the moneyer for this issue and was a supporter of Caesar during this time. He was able to secure the rank of aedile or praetor this year through his friendship with Caesar that had arisen due to serving under Caesar in the Gallic campaigns. Pansa would prosper in the coming years and was designated for consul by Caesar in 44 BCE (for the year upcoming year 43 BCE) . Despite his support of Caesar which was reciprocated, it appears that Pansa was a Republican at heart. After Caesar's assassination in 44 BCE, he opposed the increasingly tyrannic behaviour of Marcus Antoninus as Consul, despite still supporting Caesarian legislation politically. Spearheaded by Pansa and his fellow Consul Hirtius, the decision was made by the senate to legitimise Octavian's new army and take the fight to Antoninus who was besieging Decimus Brutus and his troops in Cisalpine Gaul.. Again a man of realistic compromise, Pansa prevented Antony being designated an Enemy of the State and appeared to be doing his best to avoid total chaos. In the ensuing conflict Pansa's forces suffered heavy losses at the Battle of Forum Gallorum, and Pansa himself received serious wounds in the fighting. The second stage of the battle between the Senatorial forces and Antony resulted in a victory for the former at Mutina. As Pansa was dying, he received news of this success and the death of his consular colleague. The deaths of the consuls left Octavian in charge of the senatorial forces and allowed him to act more freely and with more power in the ensuing political manoeuvring. As a result, Octavian was rumoured to have been involved in the death of Pansa. Allegedly, in his final hours, Pansa told Octavian not to trust Cicero or the Senate. A realistic and pragmatic remark from a man who lived his life in like fashion. The reverse depicts an interesting deity, Jupiter Anxurvs, the youthful protector of the town of Anxur. Perhaps related to the gens Vibia or Pansa's biological origin? Another reason I like the coin is that it is quite funny. It is thought that the mask of Pan obverse is simply a reference to PANsa's cognomen. Pansa's (adopted) father was a moneyer in 90 BCE and had made the same joke back then! These masks could be used as decorative items, worn in plays, or for religious purposes. I also had to research what exactly C.f and C.n mean. Turns out the coin communicates his ancestry and according to ForumAncientCoins, F and N are patronymics, F, filius, for "son of" N, nepos for "grandson of." Since Pansa's father shared his first name Caius, C.f means son of Caius. I couldn't find out his grandfather's name, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was Caius also. All in all, this is a beautiful coin that traverses the time period between the Republic and the Principate. It was minted under a key player who was involved in the machinations of the most famous Romans. It is an interesting design, combining religion, culture, humour, a specific locality and a family in-joke that whose provenance goes back 50 years! Post times you ventured out of your collecting niche and provide an explanation if you wish! Furthermore, if anyone has anything to add about my coin, it will be most welcomed! This is also my first attempt at taking my own pictures with a rubbish camera phone. I'll borrow my partner's iPhone for the next batch I think! C. Vibius C. f. C. n. Pansa Caetronianus AR Denarius. Rome, 48 BC. Mask of bearded Pan to right; PANSA below / Jupiter Axurus (or Anxurus) seated to left, holding patera and sceptre; C•VIBIVS•C•F•C•N IOVIS•AXVR around. Crawford 449/1a; BMCRR Rome 3978; RSC Vibia 18. 3.56g