Added my first Nero denarius

[ambr0zie]

As I mentioned in the past, completing a 12 Caesars set is not one of my main targets, but this doesn't mean I refuse adding denarii of the 12 Caesars whenever possible.
One of the missing ones was added today, I was stalking it since it was published. I knew it will not be cheap, despite its flaws, but I strongly think it is one of my my best Imperial additions in 2022.

Nero AD 54-68. Rome. Denarius AR. 20 mm, 2,65 g

Struck circa AD 64-65. NERO CAESAR AVGVSTVS, laureate head right / [AVGVSTV]S AVGVSTA, Nero, radiate and togate, standing left, holding patera in right hand and long scepter in right; to right, empress, veiled and draped, standing left, holding patera in right hand and cornucopia in left. RIC I 45; WCN 55; RSC 43; BMCRE 54-5; BN 201.

There were some reasons I wanted this coin. First - the obverse portrait is very decent, good centering, fully readable legend. The reverse, although it is bad (in the first second I saw it, I thought there are 3 characters on the reverse) has a main advantage for me. It is rarer than the average Nero denarius. Perhaps it's just me, but when I see a type of coin too often (even if it's not cheap) I don't want it. Perhaps it's just a false impression, but I saw too many Nero denarii with IVPPITER CVSTOS or Salus. I have a similar feeling about Vitellius coins with altar and dolphin and - especially - Augustus denarii with Gaius and Lucius.

And of course I liked the reverse scene, with the empress included.
But this is the tricky part with this coin. When I attributed it I found various descriptions about the empress on the reverse. Some sellers describe it as Poppaea. Others as Statilia Messalina, Nero's third wife. Some describe it as Livia (?!). Most of them just leave it as "empress" and the attribution "RIC 45 or 57"

This confusion has a core reason ... the ambiguity (as I see it) in RIC, where the empress is not even named... and the coin has 2 entries.

... and

This complicates things as if the coin was struck in 64-65 Poppaea could have been alive. But if the coin is struck in 65 after her death or 66, the Augusta is Statilia Messalina.
Is there a Nero specialist here who can distinguish RIC 45 and RIC 57? The footnote sheds some light ... but not enough

A difference in style for the obverse perhaps? The description is identical also in OCRE and what makes me more confused is that both RIC types have the reference BMC 52 (similar situation with the aureii)

 

Of course, please post Nero coins (preferably denarii but I will not protest about imperial bronzes or provincials)

[Prieure de Sion]

1st - Gratulations for this nice coin! 

 

1 minute ago, ambr0zie said:

Of course, please post Nero coins (preferably denarii but I will not protest about imperial bronzes or provincials)

2st - ha ha 😄 😄 you make joke - I try to get a Nero Denarius the last months. But I dont ant sell my car or my house. No - really - ist hard find a Rome minting Nero Silver Denarius with a) good condition and b) nice price. So - I have only a silver Tetradrachm (not silver denarius).

 

 

 

Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus

Tetradrachm of the Roman Imperial Period 63-64 AD; Material: Silver; Diameter: 26mm; Weight: 14.60g; Mint: Antiochia ad Orontem, Syria; Reference: Prieur 89, RPC I 4189; Obverse: Laureate bust of emperor to right, wearing aegis. The Inscription reads: ΝΕΡΩΝ ΚΑΙΣΑΡ ΣΕΒΑΣΤΟΣ for Neron Kaisaros Sebastos (Nero Caesar Augustus); Reverse: Eagle standing right on thunderbolt, wings spread, palm branch to right. The Inscription reads: ΕΤΟΥΣ ΒΙΡ Ι for year 112 of the caesarian era (BIP = Beta (2), Ipota (10), Rho (100) = 112) and reign year 10 (I = Iota = 10) = 63/64 AD.

 

 

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

Very cool. Congratulations!  My 12 Caesars collection is a hodge-podge of denominations.

You've also managed to get a neat type.  My denarii of Nero are in about the same shape and most came from the 1990's.

As much as I like Nero's coins, the AE's are becoming astronomical in price.

My prettiest Sestertius is the one in my logo but here's my only Nero (so far - I don't jinx current orders) from this year.

Sear-Roman-Coins-I (2000): no 1962 variant

 

RIC-I “new” (Roman Imperial Coinage) 2.ed C.H.V. Sutherland, 1984: no 433, Rare 2.

RIC-1 “old” (1923) 1.ed Harold Mattingly: no 149

WCN = “The Western Coinages of Nero” David W. Mac Dowall, 1979: no 429

BMC -

Cohen -

33 mm 21,89 gr Ex: John Cummings, Grantham, England, July 1984

 

I guess I did pick up one Nero denarius in the years 2009-14, a grotty one.

 

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

Oops, I didn't notice the provincial add-on. Alexandrian Tets of Nero are my favorites of the Roman-Egyptian series. 

[ambr0zie]

5 minutes ago, Nerosmyfavorite68 said:

You've also managed to get a neat type.

Thank you. This was the first thing I noticed about it. And I also think that the portrait is better than the average Nero denarius. Definitely - not the best Nero denarius out there but I can't afford the gems I sometimes see in the premium auctions.
Would you (or any other collector) know the explanation for this coin being added in RIC 2 times, with a different date? and any way to distinguish them?

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

2 minutes ago, ambr0zie said:

Would you (or any other collector) know the explanation for this coin being added in RIC 2 times, with a different date? and any way to distinguish them?

I wish I could answer that, but I have no idea.

[ValiantKnight]

I myself am currently looking for a decent Nero denarius but with his name clear and entirely on the flan. It’s not as easy as one might think, at least from my experience looking for them.

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

Sear RCV I 1940 only has a terse description, no picture.  Sear describes the reverse as Augustus and Livia, but notes on the Aureus version (no picture either) that the figures are often described as  Nero and Poppea.   Time frame: 64-5 AD.

 

[ambr0zie]

I tried finding a Nero denarius for about 1 year. Initially I wanted to pay 50 euros for one but it seems even the most decrepit example is a little more expensive. I am probably 20 years late. I raised the stake to 100 but this still doesn't bring a very presentable Nero denarius. Overall, I don't think I did bad.
The ones I have seen are usually with Salus and (especially) IVPPITER CVSTOS (note - I like the denarius posted by @Nerosmyfavorite68and I think it's a decent example of a budget denarius - it is correctly centered on both side and Nero's portrait is easily recognized). It's just that I saw them too often and I lost interest in them.

I think my coin is the perfect compromise - not the most common reverse, plus the obverse, again in my opinion, is above average.

1 minute ago, Nerosmyfavorite68 said:

Sear RCV I 1940 only has a terse description, no picture.  Sear describes the reverse as Augustus and Livia, but notes on the Aureus version (no picture either) that the figures are often described as  Nero and Poppea.   Time frame: 64-5 AD.

This is in concordance with British Museum descriptions of their examples

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_R-9902

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_R-9903

So, in a (very modest) way - I got a coin with Poppaea too =))

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

I think I paid about $60 for worn, common Nero Denarii to Matt kreuzer during the late 1990's. Records indicate that I paid $115 for the posted example, in 2010.

[ambr0zie]

My example was 130 euros including fees. It was the reason I entered this auction, having 2 major targets (this was one, the second was a Balbinus but that one went too high, especially since I have already bought the Nero). The invoice was more expensive than my average invoice, but I think I added some important coins, including a coin with a turtle (good addition for my animals subcollection), a Marcus Aurelius as Caesar decent denarius and a Diva Faustina II denarius with a reverse I was after for a while. Plus the Diadumenian from Deultum I posted yesterday - a coin I wanted a lot since I lost an example a few months ago and I was bothered about this.

[Roman Collector]

Congratulations on your new addition to your collection! Nero denarii are in high demand and they don't come cheaply. Moreover, although I COULD acquire a Nero denarius, I get distracted. You know how it is.

I wish I knew the difference between the two RIC numbers; the best I can tell, their descriptions are identical. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about Nero coins could explain. @KenDorney@Richard Beale@curtislclay

I do have several provincials of Nero. This one, however, is my most recently acquired. I like the cartoonish Athena on the reverse.

Nero, AD 54-68.
Roman provincial Æ 17 mm, 6.4 g.
Pamphylia, Side, c. AD 55.
Obv: ΝЄΡⲰΝ ΚΑΙϹΑΡ, laureate and draped bust, right.
Rev: ϹΙΔΗΤ, Athena advancing left, holding spear over shoulder and shield, serpent alongside her; pomegranate upper left field.
Refs: RPC I, 3401; BMC 19.152,75; Mionnet Suppl. 7, p. 66,188; Sear GIC, 608; SNG France 784.

[Al Kowsky]

My first Nero denarius turned out to be a fake, & I followed that by adding a fake Nero tetradrachm to my collection 😖. I bought the two coins nearly 60 years ago when I was in high school & knew literally nothing about ancient coins 😏. I was a magnet for fake ancient coins 🤣. I was buying these coins from trusted dealers with money earned from a weekend job 🙄. 

 

[Qcumbor]

Cool addition @ambr0zie

My nicest Nero  is a dupondius I acquired almost 40 years ago. Back then It cost me the the stratospheric (for me) amount of 350 french francs (53 € not taking into acount inflation)

Nero, Dupondius - Rome mint, 65 CE
NERO CLAVD CAESAR AVG GER PM TR P IMP PP, Radiate head of Nero right
ROMA in ex, SC in field, Roma seated left holding wreath and parazonium, , right foot on a helmet
13.06 gr
Ref : RCV #1966, Cohen #280

Q

[mc9]

My only Nero silver coin,

IMP NERO CAESAR AVG PP

Nero bearded and laur. r.

IUPPITER CUSTOS

Jupiter, bare to waist, seated l. on throne, r. holding thunderbolt, l. long scepter

Denarius,  A.D. 67 – 68, 2.94 gr, 16.78 mm, RIC I 69

 

[John Conduitt]

Great coins. Some are interesting, some are pretty nice. I only have one Nero. I don't think he looks good enough to spend a huge amount on quality 🤣

Nero Denarius, 65

Rome. Silver, 2.78g. Laureate bust right; NERO CAESAR AVGVSTVS. VESTA above dome hexastyle temple with statue of Vesta inside (RIC I, 62). Found Norfolk before 2001.

[DonnaML]

A very nice acquisition, @ambr0zie. My best Nero coins are bronzes and provincials. The denarii are very hard to find in decent condition without spending a great deal of money. Here's my Nero Salus denarius in typically mediocre condition, although his neck rolls are well-preserved!

And here's my Nero IVPPITER CVSTOS in the usual bad, low-resolution photo by FSR. I'm afraid that this one looks worse in hand than in the photo, which is why I've never tried to take my own!

Edited December 14, 2022 by DonnaML

[ambr0zie]

16 hours ago, DonnaML said:

And here's my Nero IVPPITER CVSTOS in the usual bad, low-resolution

I was just about to say this is (by far) superior to the "standard" Nero denarius I see in non premium auctions (I still think it is, but yes, it's disappointing when a coin looks worse in hand than in the original picture). On mine it's the other way around (received it yesterday) - not dramatically of course.

16 hours ago, DonnaML said:

The denarii are very hard to find in decent condition without spending a great deal of money.

Yes. Why is this happening? For ~100 euros you can't get more than a worn coin, usually with centering issues. If the reverse is a little uncommon, the price rises.
I am tempted to say that a common, worn, Vitellius denarius is cheaper that a Nero from the same category. When I realized this, 2 years ago, when I was trying to develop a strategy for a 12 Caesars collection, I was a little surprised.

From my point of view:
Caligula - 4 years of reign - even a modest denarius is next to impossible to score
Claudius - 13 years - same
Nero - 14 years of reign - completely different scenario - much more affordable in a modest condition (this is what I wanted) - but very difficult in a better condition.
I find Vitellius the most affordable from the Galba-Otho-Vitellius trio (again, I have modest examples in mind). Vespasian is no problem for somebody who wants just one or a few modest examples.

I will leave Claudius out of this discussion, but why is an emperor (Nero) with a long reign that difficult to get? As a whole, Nero denarii are not extremely rare but I don't understand why the Salus and IVPPITER CVSTOS are the most common (or at least this is what I noticed) and almost all in modest condition. Did they circulate for a very long time, as in - many decades after Nero's death?

Edited December 15, 2022 by ambr0zie

[Prieure de Sion]

No Nero coin today, but I got a great book from InAsta that I bought at an auction: Eupremio Montenegro "Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus Caesar". On about 225 pages you get to know the Julian Claudian family, the historical data of the Nero coinage and then of course the silver and bronze coins of Nero, also partly with some background information. A really nice book that I can only recommend to every "Nero fan".

 

 

Edited December 15, 2022 by Prieure de Sion

[Richard Beale]

On 12/11/2022 at 10:31 PM, Roman Collector said:

Congratulations on your new addition to your collection! Nero denarii are in high demand and they don't come cheaply. Moreover, although I COULD acquire a Nero denarius, I get distracted. You know how it is.

 

I wish I knew the difference between the two RIC numbers; the best I can tell, their descriptions are identical. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about Nero coins could explain. @KenDorney@Richard Beale@curtislclay

 

According to the notes, RIC 57 is "regarded as a continuation of issues (nos. 44-5) of [AD] 64-5, and principally because there is sharing of an aureus die with the vesta issue (no. 61), for which there does not seem to be room in [AD] 64-5)."

So, it's because the authors believe the type was struck across two successive years, and gave it an RIC reference for each year (AD 64/5 and AD 65/6).

[ambr0zie]

Thank you! So the coin has 2 RIC entries. Not something I have ever seen. I thought there are 2 very similar coin but with a minor difference.