Ocatarinetabellatchitchix

Here’s my old Tacitus, like yours from Lugdunum, and also a Florianus from the same engraver maybe ?

15 minutes ago, Heliodromus said:

here's Imperator Olga (my wife's Belarussian doll)

Very interesting and clear explanation.
By the way, is Olga single ?

9 hours ago, kapphnwn said:

  I believe the subject of the left facing bust is rather long and complicated. Before I start I should make the caveat that what I am saying is the process in general. It does not pertain to some specific instances of which there are plenty of examples. Generally in the Greek series the vast majority of Gods are depicted facing right. There are some exceptions most notably Herakles who is often seen facing left. This may be a reference to his semi divine status. However during the late classic and early Hellenistic periods  we see a shift in the treatment of the gods. They can be seen on the reverses of coins and often they face to the left. This is because on most occasions the adjunct symbol eg the eagle of Zeus or the trident of Poseidon is being carried in the right hand of the god in a raised position. It the image was seen from the right it is likely that these adjunct symbols would have the potential of partially obscuring the face.   This could lead to some confusion among the target audience as other attributes of the gods could include as again in the case of Zeus the fact that he is a mature bearded male . Furthermore with the right side being thrust forward the composition becomes simpler. Zeus holding his eagle before him allows his scepter to be held behind him, balancing the composition. 

  When examining the left facing portraits of the late third and early fourth century Emperors I am struck by the fact that the same problem exists and is answered more or less in the same manner. Instead of an adjunct symbol the emperor is carrying a spear often seen over his shoulder, a victory or an eagle tipped scepter. Again had these images faced right it is possible that some of these items may obscure the face. Furthmore with the right side being thrust forward it allows the composition to be more balanced. 

Constantine I Ae Follis Siscia 318-319 AD Obv Helmeted bust right cuirassed with spear over right shoulder and shield bearing a mounted rider on his left. Rv. Rv Altar flanked by two victories inscribing a shield between them  RIC 56 var 2.85 grms 18 mm Photo by W. Hansen

This coin does illustrate some of the things I am trying to convey. The spear being held in his right hand is seen behind his head and does not have the potential of obscuring the face. The hand though foreshortened and somewhat smaller than it should be is still none the less more in scale than it would be if the image was reversed. The upper body of the emperor is seen with the shield being seen further to our right. Thus it again does not obscure the face and does give a nice rendition of the blazon which is upon it.  Despite many flaws this image is nicely balanced.

I like your idea. By the way, I’m pretty sure I recognize this coin… Are you Terence Cheesman ???

Here is a question that remained unanswered for me about Roman imperial coins: why so many right facing busts and almost never the emperor turned to the left? Here are some assumptions. Anyone with some knowledge of the Latin language will have guessed that the left side does not exactly have a good reputation among the Romans. The term is in fact said to be sinister (as opposed to dextra - the right). It has spread into many languages, giving for example the word "sinistre" in French. All because of the augurs, a religious college that interpreted the flight of birds to read the omens sent by the Gods. To sum up, before an important decision, the augurs observed the sky: if the birds came from the right, the Gods were favorable; if they came from the left, the omen was unfavorable. It is clear that the left side was deemed bad, harmful.

Another theory is that the left has a negative connotation, because of the link that the Ancients established with shadow or darkness. Look at a Roman map: the four cardinal points are laid out as we still know them today, so that on the right is East and on the left is West. If you look towards the North, the sun therefore rises on the right hand, and disappears on the left hand: from the right comes light and heat, which disappears on the left, generating darkness and cold. Proponents of this theory also argue that the Latin term scaevus (left, or clumsy...), an earlier adjective apparently of the same etymological origin, comes from a Proto-Indo-European root meaning "shadow".

What about lefties in all this? They were, in a way, the collateral victims of the Romans' aversion to everything related to their favorite side. By extension, they were first seen as disadvantaged by the Gods and therefore unlucky, then they were considered clumsy and finally, they were mistrusted because they were reputed to be crafty and disloyal. At the birth of a child, when the latter seemed to favor his left hand to the detriment of the right, his left arm was bandaged along his body to prevent him from using it, and to encourage him to use the right !

But there were some exceptions; we can assume that the Emperor Tiberius was left-handed, according to a passage from Suetonius:

"Tiberius was strong, sturdy, and above the ordinary height. Broad in shoulders and chest, he had, from head to toe, all limbs well proportioned. His left hand was more agile and more stronger than the right. Its joints were so strong that it pierced a freshly picked apple with its finger, and with a flick it wounded a child and even an adult in the head." (Suetonius, "Life of Tiberius", 68.)

The Emperor Commodus also proclaimed loud and clear that a was a leftie, which allowed him to highlight his exploits as a gladiator:

"He fought as a gladiator. He devoted himself to the exercises of this profession and used the armor of those called secutores, the shield in his right arm and the wooden sword in his left hand; for he was proud of 'to be left-handed'. (Dion Cassius, "Roman History", LXXII - 19.)

On at least 95% of Roman imperial coins, we will find on the obverse the bust of the Emperor facing right ( exception on Probus’ coinage). But the reason why there were scarce or rare left facing bust remains a mystery. During the time of the Severans, almost all busts were right facing. But with the arrival of the 3rd century left facing busts began to slowly reappear. One reason for showing the bust facing left is to indicate a consular or martial purpose. This type was not rare during the time of Probus and continues into the Tetrarchy and the Constantinian era. Let’s notice that the left facing helmeted military busts of Constantine from the mint of London during the right star issue can be more common comprising around 10% of the issue discovered in hoards. It also seems that in this period of time these left busts were used with younger rulers for honoring their first appearance on coinage. During the minting of the FEL TEMP REPARATIO issue, the left facing bust was indicating the middle of three denominations. Since I’m collecting Gallic rulers coins, I know for sure that left facing busts are hard to find and very expensive… That’s the reason why I was very excited to acquire this Victorinus’ specimen, with the added bonus of an heroic bust type. All known examples are from the same pair of dies, and you only see one for sale every 10 years; a handful are in the hands of private collectors.

Trier  18mm  2.48g

IMP C VICTORINVS·P·F·AVG / PAX AVG

Pax holding olive branch & long transverse sceptre

I’d really love to see your own examples, and I’m wondering how many Emperors we can show off here. Please show me your coins !

This is what I call a mysterious coin. As mentioned above, knowing the size and weight could give us a clue as to its authenticity

It is obvious that the DIVO CLAUDIO / CONSECRATIO issues were imitated on an enormous scale. For example, in many hoards ( like the Normanby), the imitations out numbered the official specimens. The regular issues are also very difficult to distinguish from the imitations in many cases. The official types similar to yours are: garlanded altar and altar divided into four sections. Bastien and Pflaum have subdivided the pieces at the altar into several categories, even if they are most likely interpretations of the same type by different engravers. 

Many consecration coins of Claudius II also come from local Gaulish mints. Some present totally incoherent legends, others flagrant spelling errors. On the other hand, there are specimens that combine the variant with garland and the one with four compartments, and we can even find examples with « unidentified objects » into the altar…

It is interesting to know that coins of good style belonging to this series have also been considered as the product of a more or less clandestine and certainly fraudulent activity of some Roman engravers, so maybe it’s the case here, which could explain the « official » style.

It is also a possibility that your coin is a new unknown type. The main problem with this theory is the fact that these CONSECRATIO issues specimens have been  produced in industrial quantities and are also very commonly found, both in individual discoveries and in those of monetary treasures. So it would be very surprising if a new type had been minted and very few or even a single specimen had been unearthed so far, but we never know ! One thing is certain, it is that this piece seems to be unique and extremely interesting for any collector of this era of the Roman Empire. Thanks for sharing.