Prieure de Sion

Then I misunderstood - English and French are not my native languages. But that doesn't change the fact that the restrictions for us as collectors of ancient coins are increasing. It is becoming increasingly difficult for us to exchange/trade and collect coins across countries.

Yes... nothing else i said... our ancient coins are BEFORE 1500 AD ... or? Before 1500 AD and more 1.500 Euro.

https://www.culture.gouv.fr/Thematiques/Circulation-des-biens-culturels/Pour-les-professionnels/Comment-soumettre-une-demande-d-autorisation-d-exportation And the next information i get from a friendly france auction house. The French authorities are now increasingly controlling the export of antique goods. In our case this means - antique coins over a value of 1,500 euros OR if an antique coin leaves the EU (USA, Canada etc - no matter what value) must have an export permit from the French authorities! Means. I in Germany need the papers from the seller for a value of 1,500 euros or more. If someone from the USA buys an antique coin in France, they definitely need an export permit - regardless of the value of the goods. However, it is like in Spain and Italy too. Jesus Vico / Aureo Calico - as an example - needs about 6 weeks for shipping because both apply for the real legal Spanish papers. But we all here also know other Spanish sellers who send the coins immediately - without real documents. So if you buy/auction coins in France worth over 1,500 euros OR outside the EU, you should speak to the French seller about it. There is a risk of very high penalties or confiscation of the goods! By the way, the French papers take longer than the Spanish authorities. You wait up to 4 months for the French papers.

... and the times will be changed. I also hear what other "colleagues" are reporting - and it really seems as if the authorities are falling into a kind of "actionism" this year and are monitoring very closely and also partially keeping the broadcasts. By the way, while I wrote about the case with my Roma package in the post above, a letter came to me today from the main customs office. It is a shipment with an Octavian Denarius. I should give an explanation where this denarius comes from. Why I bought it, where from, why, why. What I want to do with it and so on. The next coin/shipment is now stuck in customs. 😞

I can tell you that it is more due to the general difficulties that are increasing more and more. Customs - in major countries - are becoming ever more nervous and precise when it comes to ancient coins. If something small is wrong or unclear, the import will be stopped immediately. In the past, customs waved through a lot of things - today a little thing is enough and it is stopped immediately. And it's just getting worse every month. Today (!) I am receiving a delivery from Roma Numismatik (there are also 2 groups of lots in the shipment), which I bought at auction on September 28, 2023. Until 3 days ago the status was that customs wanted to confiscate the shipment. With a lot of effort I have now got the shipment released! Still questions? And when I send something to my customers, it no longer happens every 1-2 months that I have to add something to a shipment. Currently there is at least one shipment every week where I have to submit documents and justifications to customs because the export has been stopped. Things are really getting worse every week with the import/export of ancient coins. Of course, some people will now say, strange, I didn't have any problems with my delivery. Yes, if you get a delivery once a month, you might not notice. But the auction houses and dealers like me who receive and ship goods every day notice it clearly! There is a significant, extremely significant increase in problems at customs! That's why I understand Künker - and many companies will follow suit, I can assure you! That's probably why I'll be giving up my shop in the coming weeks and months. It is simply too high a financial risk for me to lose expensive coins in customs. If the customer doesn't get the coin, I have to pay him back the money. And my shipping insurance will not cover any confiscation by customs. The money is gone.

I don't know what you call it in America, in Germany we call something like this "idiot's luck". And I can boast that I always have such "idiot luck" - I buy coins and often don't even notice that there is something "special" about the coin. Sometimes more special, sometimes less. Today I accidentally bought a Geta at auction because I just thought the portrait was beautiful and because I like the coins from Laodicea. Then I saw in the description (only after purchasing) that there was a legend error. Instead of GETA just a GEA. The Syrian engraver simply left a T there. Publius Septimius Geta; Reign: Septimius Severus Mint: Laodiceia ad Mare, Syria; Date: 202 AD Nominal: Denarius; Material: Silver; Diameter: 19.5mm; Weight: 3.48g Reference: BMC 751; Reference: Cohen 83; Reference: RIC IV Geta 98 Obverse: Bust of Geta, bare-headed, draped, right Inscription: P SEPT GEA(sic!) CAES PONT (insteat of P SEPT GETA CAES PONT) Translation: Publius Septimius Geta, Caesar, Pontifex [Maximus] Translation: Publius Septimius Geta, Caesar, [high] priest Reverse: Minerva, helmeted, draped, standing left, leaning on shield, holding spear in right hand Inscription: MINERV SANCT Translation: Minerva Sanctae Translation: Minerva, the sacred

I have a golden week / weekend … 😉 1. A lovely Tremissis with a lovely Honorius portrait. Honorius. AD 393-423. AV Tremissis (16mm, 1.50 g, 6h). Constantinople mint. Struck circa AD 403-408. D N HONORI VS P F AVG, pearl-diademed, draped, and cuirassed bust right / VICTORIA AVGVSTORVM, Victory advancing forwards, head left, holding wreath in right hand and globus cruciger in left; star to right; CONOB. RIC X 35; Depeyrot 58/2. Toned and lustrous, minor scrapes, minor edge mark. Near EF. An attractive example. 2. A uncertain Zeno Solidus from Western Europe (?). Pseudo-Imperial, uncertain AV Solidus. In the name of Zeno. Uncertain mint, AD 476-489. D N ZENO PERP AVG, pearl-diademed, helmeted and cuirassed bust facing slightly to right, holding spear and shield decorated with horseman motif / VICTORIA AVGGG Δ, Victory standing facing, head to left, holding long jewelled cross; star in right field, CONOB in exergue. For prototype, cf. RIC X 911 and 930, Depeyrot 108/1; Roma E-110, 1656 (same dies). 4.34g, 20mm, 5h. Extremely Fine. Extremely Rare. 3. A Zeno with a legend error at the reverse with „I“ before VICTORIA. Zeno. Second reign, AD 476-491. AV Solidus (19.5mm, 4.39 g, 6h). Constantinople mint, 4th officina. Pearl-diademed, helmeted, and cuirassed bust facing slightly right, holding spear over shoulder and shield / Victory standing left, holding long cross; star to right; Δ//CONOB. RIC X 911 and 930; Depeyrot 108/1. Lightly toned, minor doubling, lightly clippped. EF. 4. A Odovacar Solidus wit a retrograde „Z“ at the obverse legend. Pseudo-Imperial, Odovacar (Odoacer) AV Solidus. In the name of Zeno. Rome, AD 476-489. D N ZENO PERP F AVG (Z retrograde), pearl-diademed, helmeted and cuirassed bust facing slightly to right, holding spear and shield decorated with horseman motif / VICTORIA AVGGG Γ•, Victory standing facing, head to left, holding long jewelled cross; star in right field, •COMOB• in exergue. RIC X 3656; Depeyrot 90/1; Lacam pls. 50-1, 10-24. 4.38g, 20mm, 6h. Near Extremely Fine. Extremely rare with partially retrograde obv. legend.

Is there any good book or publication for this period, with description of the differences and many examples?

I have a few other collector friends who also sent Leu the PDF document. I'm curious whether the form was sent to the other buyers from Germany. With Roma, CNG, Heritage, Noonans etc - it always works for all of them. But it must also be said that the PDF from Leu was attached to the last previous Leu auction. But maybe this time 7,000 coins were too many and too chaotic that it was forgotten. Still very annoying. Yes... no 😉 Yes, you can complain and I will do so, but... It's not that easy. Because you cannot complain to the post office, you have to complain directly to German customs. 1. The first thing I have to do is write to Deutsche Post, which will send me the customs documents. These customs documents are not sent along and must be requested separately from the German postal service. It can take 2-3 weeks for me to receive these documents from Deutsche Post. 2. Then I have to send an objection letter to German Customs with the reasons - and the papers that I received from Deutsche Post (point 1). And here is the first hurdle, if I don't do this at German customs within 30 days, the deadline is over. And since Deutsche Post sometimes takes 3-4 weeks to send the customs documents to me, there is a high chance that I will exceed the deadline. 3. If I do it within the deadline, it is not guaranteed that a subsequent objection will be accepted and accepted. The German state doesn't like paying back taxes. It is not guaranteed that it will work. And if it works, see German forum, then it can take 6 months or almost a year until the objection is processed and the taxes are repaid. There are also buyers who gave up after a year. Of course I will try to appeal, I'm not giving away 110 euros. But it's just very annoying, it's costing me a lot of time and will cost me nerves. And if things go badly, I receive the documents from the post office too late for an objection, then it's over. I gave Leu the feedback because of the auction. They haven't responded to my criticism and simply ignored my email. I'm curious to see if they respond to my email because of the shippment and tax today.

I actually didn't want to dig up this thread anymore - but this company is getting on my last nerve. And the service is getting worse. I also won a coin in the said auction. It's borderline crazy to say that we'll hold an auction in mid-December, but won't start shipping the goods until a month later. But you already know that from the Leu auction and then vacation. But OK. You knew that. What's getting on my nerves again today with this company. I sent Leu a PDF document for German customs in December after the auction. We have put together a PDF in the German Numismatics Forum with the customs number and, above all, the justification for the customs tariff. We ask the auction houses to add this PDF to the package. Since then, it has rarely happened that we pay the wrong 19% tax, but rather the correct 7% tax. Long story short. I also sent the PDF to Leu and asked other auction houses to please include this customs paper in the shipment. Leu replied that of course they will do so. Today the postman rings and wants 180 euros (200 USD) in customs fees from me. But actually it should be around 70 euros (75 USD). So I was charged 19% tax, why? Why? Because of course there was nothing there. Leu didn't attach my PDF as promised. It was just an invoice and from the item description you couldn't even tell that it was an antique collector's coin. The goods were not even declared as such at least. Of course the customs officer didn't know what exactly the content was and has now taken 19%. 110 euros (120 USD) was completely unnecessarily overpaid. Thank you for this “great” service.

Thats the question Tejas ... 😉 Roma did descripe all of this type in their Auction like this. This is my question - why? Do they well? Or is this a normal type from Constantinople, or a Italy type from Theoderic? And my last question - whats about this types with an I before VICTORIA? I see this "I" - Type very rare and get no information about the mint place.

I've been wanting to write for the last few weeks and days to see if anyone knows why Severus Alexander is no longer so active here. I noticed the lack of his great posts. Now I understand why. This are bad news. I wish Severus Alexander the necessary strength and a speedy and good recovery! All the best and love.

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=11297994 Pseudo-Imperial, uncertain AV Solidus. In the name of Zeno. Uncertain mint, AD 476-489. D N ZENO PERP AVG, pearl-diademed, helmeted and cuirassed bust facing slightly to right, holding spear and shield decorated with horseman motif / VICTORIA AVGGG Δ, Victory standing facing, head to left, holding long jewelled cross; star in right field, CONOB in exergue. For prototype, cf. RIC X 911 and 930, Depeyrot 108/1; for similar, cf. Roma XXVII, 815 (hammer: GBP 3,000) and Roma XXVIII, 695. 4.33g, 20mm, 5h. Extremely Fine. Extremely Rare. What do you think of this Solidus type from the Roma auction in the middle of the year? Not imperial, in the name of Zeno and uncertain place of minting. Edit. And there is a similar type from Zeno with the following reverse legend: I VICTORI-A AVCCC … I see 3, 4 coins at acsearch, will begin with the letter „I“ … they are official imperial from Constantinopel or also uncertain mint?

I guess I noticed that. And I asked him how he justified his “it’s a fake.” But he just answered me that he didn't have to justify it. But that is not serious. That's not how serious experts do it (there are arguments about it, examples, etc.) and that's also how the experts at ForgeryNetwork do it. Anyone who says fake should also back it up with one or two arguments. So I did it together with ForgeryNetwork and the expert from the German forum. We compared stamps, compared embossing details, compared similar known forgeries and exchanged arguments to prove that it is a modern forgery. "It's a fake just because I said it" isn't enough for me when it comes from Murphy. This is because he has already condemned coins as counterfeits that are very likely not counterfeits - but most importantly, coins that are 100% counterfeits have been classified as genuine. Don't get me wrong please! Everybody makes mistakes. Every expert makes mistakes. No problem. But in this case, "it's a fake because I say it, I don't have to justify it and I'm never wrong" is simply not enough for me. An expert who thinks he doesn't have to justify his statements and that his statements are the law is of no interest to me. Of course, the Nero Denarius is a modern counterfeit. But we now know this for sure based on the evidence we have collected. That's how you do it. The coin has now been published as a counterfeit. And I'd rather stop with the topic now. Otherwise it happens to me here, as on Facebook, that Murphy fans suddenly write me lots of PMs and insult me. Don't feel like it 😉

That's how it is with some counterfeits - some cannot be recognized immediately and some counterfeits are not 100% guaranteed to be fake. I experience again and again in forums that coins are judged too quickly and hastily as real or counterfeit. What I find really bad are “discussions” in which some people say “that’s definitely real/fake” and justify it with “because I say that and because I know what I’m talking about.” This means that a serious dispute is not possible. Anyone who says that a coin is definitely real or definitely a fake should be able to justify this with arguments. I would like to once again particularly emphasize Amentia from the German Numismatics Forum. When he judges a coin, he justifies this with examples and you then know how to assess and evaluate these arguments. Long story short. I also submitted the coin to ForgeryNetwork and received an email from the admin and expert of roman ancient coins today. Here is the upload: https://www.forgerynetwork.com/asset.aspx?id=yNRQOI90l3Q= The People from ForgeryNetwork are not 100% sure it was a modern forgery. Yes, they classify the coin as “suspect”. But the evidence is not yet enough. The back is similar to existing modern fakes. But the front with the portraits is not necessarily very similar to other known forgeries. I received a comment on the entry "Close matches to what I see, but still enough variations to not be quite certain. I think suspect." and I was asked by email to look for further evidence and clues. So that I can be understood correctly. Of course, this coin is a "very hot item" and very suspect! But elsewhere facts have already been established without justification. And I don't like that kind of thing. With this example you can see clearly - you should never judge a coin too quickly as being definitely real or definitely fake - there always have to be good arguments for it.

Normally I would agree to you, but my Valoren insurance says, that I must select a shipping provider, who deliver in max 14 days. If not, no insurance. So I will send with normal UPS Express or FedEx - hope will not lost. If it was lost, the insurance will pay 100%.

Ah perfect, thanks for that link.

Attention please! Bad news… with a longer search I find another similar coin at a past auction as whitedraw - and a second similar coin from eBay Fakeseller „demetrios7107“ 😭 that’s sad, I begin to like the coin, but shit happens. I had a little stupid feeling in my stomach this morning and, just to be on the safe side, I opened a thread on Numiswiki early: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=133046.0 Thanks to Amentia from the German Forum searching (and founding) for the same (fake) types! So I must upload this coin and type to the Fake Report Database: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/displayimage.php?pid=22591

Salve! Next week I must send a modern Gold Coin (Year 2001) from Germany to USA. The amount is round about 300 USD. Normally 99.9% of my US-shippings are ancient coins older 100 years, so I declare the coins as „antique more than 100 years old“ - over hundreds of ancient coins I have no problem with this declaration. And all of my customers don’t must pay anytime any tax fees at import. But now I must send a modern Gold coin from year 2001 and I am not sure what description and declaration was the best for export btw. import into USA. I don’t want the recipient must pay a tax or becomes problems. Long story short - what’s the best declaration? Thanks for help.

Thats true! I had only one Agrippina II - also only provincial and not really with a superb condition. The silver denarius was my second Agrippina. Iulia Agrippina the Younger as Augusta Wife of Claudius, Mother of Nero (and sister of Caligula) Under Gaius Postumus; Bronze of the Roman Imperial Period 54/59 AD Material: AE; Diameter: 15mm; Weight: 4.28g; Mint: Laodicea ad Lycum, Phrygia Reference: RPC I. 2918 (Specimens 16, 11 in the core collections), BMC 174 Obverse: Draped bust of Agrippina II, right. The Inscription reads: ΑΓΡΙΠΠΕΙΝΑ ΣΕΒΑΣΤΗ Agrippeina Sebasti (Agrippina Augusta). Reverse: Eagle on cippus. The Inscription reads: ΓΑΙΟΥ ΠΟΣΤΟΜΟΥ ΛΑΟΔΙΚΕΩΝ for Gaios Postomos Laodikeon (Gaius Postumus, City of Laodicea).

... take a "e" or a "s" Antiochos VIII Epiphanes Philometor Kallinikos, called Grypos Reign: Seleucid Kingdom; Mint: Ake-Ptolemais, Phoenicia Date: c. 121/113 BC; Nominal: Tetradrachm Material: Silver; Diameter: 29mm; Weight: 16.44g Reference: HGC 9 1197h; Reference: SC 2336.2 Pedigree: Ex Vente Grossetti Draguignan, Auction 1045, Lot 28, 6 December 2022 Obverse: Diademed head of Antiochos VIII right; within fillet border; Reverse: Zeus Ouranios, draped, standing facing, head to left, holding star in outstretched hand and long sceptre; crescent above, monogram in field; all within laurel wreath border; Inscription: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟΥΣ; Translation: Basileos Antioxou Epiphanous; Translation: King Antiochos Epiphanes.

No other big provincial bronze? Common 😉 ... ok, after 6h... Imperator Caesar Marcus Aurelius Commodus Antoninus Augustus Reign: Commodus Mint: Verbe (Ourbianon), Pisidia Date: 180/191 AD Nominal: Bronze Medallion Material: AE Diameter: 35mm Weight: 34.85g Reference: RPC IV.3 17565 (this coin) Reference: SNG von Aulock Pisidiens I 1399 (same obverse die, but different reverse) RPC Online: https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/4/17565 Rare: Specimens 1 (0 in the core collections) Provenance: Leu Numismatik Winterthur, Switzerland (Auktion 14, Lot 1022) Provenance: CNG Classical Numismatics Lancaster, USA (Auction 120, Lot 632) Provenance: Comptoir des Monnaies Anciennes Lille, France Obverse: Laureate, draped and cuirassed bust of Commodus to right, seen from behind Inscription: [AV KAI KOMMOΔOC] ANTΩNЄINOC Translation: Autokrator Kaisaros Kommodos Antoneinos Translation: Imperator Caesar Commodus Antoninus Reverse: Hades in quadriga to right, holding scepter and carrying off Persephone; above, small Eros flying right, holding torch and guiding the horses’ reins; below, overturned kalathos containing flowers Inscription: OYЄPBIANΩN Translation: Ouerbianon Translation: City of Verbe Next: another ancient coin with a mythological scene...

Link: Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Elagabal Stater of the Cimmerian Bosporus Empire Period 218/219 AD Material: Gold Elektron; Diameter:20mm; Weight: 7.69g Mint: Pantikapaion, Kingdom of the Bosporus; Reference: MacDonald 558/3 Obverse: Draped bust of Rhescuporis II with diadema to the right. In front of it a trident (attribute of Poseidon). Inscription: ΒΑϹΙΛƐⲰϹ · PHCKOVΠOPIΔOC for Basileos Rheskouporis (King Rhescuporis); Reverse: Draped bust of Elagabal with laurel wreath to the right. Inscription: ЄIΦ for Epsilon (5) + Iota (10) + Phi (500) = 515 (Dated year 515 of the Bosporan era = 218/219 AD).

Good idea!

Agrippina, the Younger Today I acquired a denarius coin, issued under Nero, but also with the head of Agrippina the Younger. Probably one of the most dazzling and controversial (female) figures in Roman history, also known as the kingmaker. The family-relatives of Agrippina the Younger read like a who's who of the imperial Roman aristocracy. She was the daughter of Germanicus and Agrippina the Elder She was the great-granddaughter of Augustus According to Roman law, Tiberius was her grandfather She was the sister of Gaius, known as Caligula Equally famous siblings were Nero Caesar and Drusus Caesar She was the wife and perhaps poisoner of Emperor Claudius She was Emperor Nero's supermother Agrippina the Younger did not have a good reputation even during her lifetime and in ancient obituaries. She seduced, poisoned and murdered for power. She married her uncle and is even said to have become involved with her son Nero. Even the great Roman historian Tacitus described her as "inflamed with a complete desire for a reign of terror". And his colleague Suetonius called her a "domineering and domineering woman". She has gone down in history as the emperor's murderess and the monstrous shadow of her son Nero. When he finally had her killed, contemporaries considered it a logical consequence of her family background. Iulia Agrippina was born on November 6, 15 or 16 BC in Oppidum Ubiorum (today Cologne) and died on Nero's orders in Campania in 59 AD. Agrippina was the seventh of at least nine children of Germanicus Iulius Caesar and Vipsania Agrippina, also known as Agrippina the Elder. She was the great-granddaughter of Augustus and thus belonged to the closest circle of the imperial family. On Augustus' instructions, Agrippina's great-uncle Tiberius adopted her father Germanicus. Tiberius thus legally became her grandfather. Her siblings included Nero Caesar and Drusus Caesar, who were adopted by Tiberius in 20 AD as potential heirs to the throne but were executed in 30 and 33 AD respectively, the later emperor Caligula as well as Drusilla and Iulia Livilla. Her first marriage was to Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus from 28 AD, with whom she had her only son, Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, the future emperor Nero, in the year AD. After her brother Caligula had her worshipped as goddesses together with her two sisters Drusilla and Iulia Livilla at the beginning of his reign, he suspected the other two sisters of having conspired against him together with their brother-in-law Marcus Aemilius Lepidus after Drusilla's death and sent Agrippina into exile on the rocky island of Pontia in 39 AD, from which she was only able to return after his murder in 41 AD. Her first husband died in 40 AD as a result of illness. After her return, she married Gaius Sallustius Crispus Passienus, a wealthy and influential senator, who probably died in 47 AD; according to Suetonius, he was killed by Agrippina's treachery. In 49 AD, Agrippina then married her uncle Claudius as his fourth wife, for which a law had to be changed that forbade marriage between uncle and niece. She then succeeded in strengthening her position at court and weakening that of her opponents. Claudius hoped to gain additional dynastic legitimacy through his union with Agrippina, who, unlike him, was descended from Emperor Augustus. The marriage therefore also strengthened Agrippina's influence and reputation in the public eye, which is why she was honored with statues and inscriptions. Although Agrippina's new position did not give her a legal or institutional position, it did give her de facto political power, which she claimed and exercised for herself. It is clear from pictorial evidence and historiography, which is predominantly hostile to her, that she did not conform to the traditional image of women. She sought to secure the succession to the throne for her son, although Claudius himself had a son, Tiberius Claudius Caesar Germanicus, also known as Britannicus, from his marriage to Valeria Messalina. In February 50 AD, Claudius adopted the 12-year-old Lucius, who now succeeded his younger stepbrother Britannicus as Nero Claudius Caesar Drusus Germanicus to the throne, thus displacing him as his immediate successor and strengthening Agrippina's future bad reputation. In addition, Claudius now gave his wife the title Augusta. She was thus the first Roman emperor's wife to be awarded this title during her husband's lifetime and also had full minting rights. Agrippina could therefore be depicted on coins minted throughout the empire without naming or portraying the princeps. Her power is also reflected in the foundation of the Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium named after her in 50 AD, which elevated the settlement at her birthplace from an oppidum to a colonia civium Romanorum, whose inhabitants, initially mostly veterans, had Roman citizenship. Nero was declared of age at the age of 13 and appointed senator and proconsul. In 53 AD, at the age of 16, he was married to his 13-year-old stepsister Claudia Octavia, the daughter of Claudius and Valeria Messalina. By adopting Nero, he had officially become her brother, whom she was not allowed to marry under Roman law, which is why Claudia had previously been made an Octavian pro forma by adoption. Agrippina took various steps to make her son the next ruler. She summoned Lucius Annaeus Seneca back to appoint him as his tutor. The senator and accomplice of Livilla had previously been sent into exile to Corsica by Messalina. Agrippina also set herself the goal of winning the loyalty and allegiance of the military. She appointed the soldier Afranius Burrus as commander of the Praetorian Guard and gradually replaced the old soldiers with new ones loyal to her father Germanicus. At events, she wore a chlamys and is also said to have sat next to her husband, putting her on an equal footing with him. The ancient sources paint a picture of a passive Claudius. Meanwhile, he bestowed on her the title of Augusta, which he had previously denied Messalina, and advertised coins bearing her image. Britannicus negated his adoptive brother and is said to have once called him by his birth name, Domitius. When Agrippina found out about this, she reported it to Claudius and accused Britannicus of treason. Claudius allowed her to dismiss Britannicus' tutors and hire new ones. In late 54 AD, Britannicus was about to celebrate his 13th birthday. At this point, Claudius fell ill and died shortly afterwards on the night of October 13, 54 AD as a result of poisoning, which is why his adopted son Nero was appointed ruler of the Roman Empire at the age of 16. Rumor has it that Agrippina poisoned her husband Claudius in order to deny his biological son Britannicus the right to rule. According to Tacitus, Agrippina had her husband Claudius poisoned with the help of the poisoner Lucusta in order to help her son Nero to power. Agrippina spent a total of six years trying to secure the title of ruler for her son. Now she expected something in return, which promised a not inconsiderable share of power. After Claudius' death, she had perhaps initially hoped to seize de facto power herself, as a coin with the inscription "Agrippina Augusta, wife of the deified Claudius, mother of Nero Caesar" suggests. Agrippina also had herself portrayed as the goddess of fortune (Fortuna). In the early years, she still exerted a strong influence on Nero's government. From then on, she moved around Rome accompanied by two lictors and gave orders to the praetorians. At first, Nero was not bothered by the fact that his mother held so much power. Coins depicted her together with her son Nero as equals on the obverse of the coins. And now I would like to introduce you to my latest acquisition. This denarius, struck early in Nero's reign, strikingly shows his mother Agrippina Junior, widow of the newly deceased and deified Claudius, as the dominant force in the imperial government. Not only is her portrait depicted on an equal basis with that of her son, her name and titles are placed on the obverse, while Nero's are relegated to the reverse. Within a few months of the regime change, Agrippina's power had been eclipsed by Nero's advisors Seneca and Burrus. For the following coin type, the titles changed places, Nero's now occupying the obverse, and the portraits became jugate, with Agrippina behind Nero. Thereafter, Agrippina was entirely excluded from the coinage. Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, with Iulia Agrippina (the Younger); Reign: Nero; Mint: Rome; Date: c. October - December 54 AD; Nominal: Denarius; Material: Silver; Diameter: 18.4mm; Weight: 3.51g; Reference: BMC 3; Reference: Cohen 7; Reference: RIC I (second edition) Nero 2; Obverse: Bust of Nero, bare-headed, right, bust of Agrippina the Younger, draped, hair in long plait, left, facing one another; Inscription: AGRIPP AVG DIVI CL AVD NERONIS CAES MATER; Translation: Agrippina Augusta, Divi Claudii Neronis Caesares Mater; Translation: Augusta Agrippina, mother of the divine Caesar, Claudius Nero; Reverse: Legend surrounding oak-wreath enclosing EX S C; Inscription: NERONI CLAVD DIVI F CAES AVG GERM IMP TR P; Translation: Nero Claudius Divi Filius Caesar Augustus Germanicus Imperator Tribunicia Potestas; Translation: Nero Claudius, son of the divine, Caesar, Augustus, victor over the Germans, Imperator, tribunician power. As already described, however, Agrippina quickly lost her power to Nero's court. On coins - as can be seen here - she first appeared on an equal footing, then behind Nero, before finally disappearing from the coinage altogether. The issue of the coin motifs in particular clearly shows how Nero freed himself from his mother's grip. Gradually, Nero's displeasure at having to share power with his mother became unmistakable. Her influence waned at the beginning of 55 AD. Nero's love affairs were a major trigger for this. His marriage to Octavia was orchestrated by Agrippina in order to secure her son's claim to power. However, Nero was unable to accept the union and instead entered into an affair with the freed Claudia Acte. According to the historian Tacitus, she consequently ordered the praetorians to oust Nero and have him replaced by Britannicus. A few weeks later, shortly before reaching the age of 14, Britannicus was poisoned during a state banquet on Nero's orders. Officially, he succumbed to epilepsy. With the murder of his adoptive brother, Nero declared his independence from Agrippina. Her portrait on the coins now appeared behind that of her son and later disappeared completely. Nero also demonstrated his superiority by removing his mother's bodyguards, assigning her a residence outside the imperial palace and declaring her persona non grata. A few years later, he fell in love with Poppaea Sabina, eight years his senior. She was the former wife of the praetorian prefect Rufrius Crispinus, whom Agrippina had previously ousted from his leadership position, and now wanted to become his wife, which was legally forbidden for a freedwoman. Poppaea gave Nero an ultimatum: she would leave him for her former husband if he did not put a definitive stop to his mother. In the spring of 59 AD, he decided to kill his mother. After a failed attempt in Baiae, a resort in Naples, in which he tried to sink his mother in a rigged boat, he sent a troop of three soldiers who ultimately killed her. Agrippina was murdered, cremated and buried without ceremony or monument. Her servant Mnester then killed himself. The murder of Agrippina made Nero the only Roman emperor to commit matricide. The matricide was later regarded as the main motive of the conspirators who had previously attempted to overthrow Nero in 65 AD and of the rebellious legions who ousted him three years later and forced him to commit suicide. Agrippina was murdered and buried in Campania. Nero was skeptical of the reactions of the inhabitants of Campania, as some of them rushed to her after Agrippina's death, unknowingly turning against their princeps. They eventually agreed publicly to Nero's official interpretation of events - Agrippina's suicide - and thus revealed themselves as accomplices, if not to the murder, then to its aftermath. Agrippina's murder forced the inhabitants of Campania to confess their allegiance to her or to Nero, something that many contemporaries shied away from in the midst of political unrest. The same problem can be found in the archaeological memory of the region: in Puteoli, Agrippina's name was removed from a monument commemorating local games, while in Herculaneum a large group of statues depicting her name and likeness, as well as many other inscriptions in and around the Gulf of Naples, were preserved until after her death. The inhabitants of Campania thus commemorated their Augusta, but were divided on the direction of this commemoration. It should be noted that Agrippina Minor gained access to imperial power three times in her 30 years of political existence: the first time as Caligula's sister, the second time as Claudius' wife and finally as Nero's mother. She was the only woman in Rome to publicly exercise the power of an emperor. Feel free to write your comments and show more examples of coins here. Coins with Claudius and Agrippina Coins of Agrippina the Younger herself Coins of Nero and Agrippina Coins of other emperors who were under the influence of strong mothers Or whatever you think is in relation