Roman REVERSE type thread: SUGGESTIONS AND IDEAS

[CPK]

 

Hello everyone!

With as much fun as we had with the "Emperors of Rome" portrait thread, I thought it would be just as fun (maybe even more so!) to do a similar thread in reverse. 😜  Your favorite REVERSE types for each Emperor!

I believe someone suggested this idea in the original thread (although I forget who) and there was a thread a while ago about which reverse type best fits each emperor. The idea I have for this thread goes beyond that, following the format of the Portrait thread. The basic ideas are as follows:

- I was minded to start with the Roman Republic (since there are so many interesting reverse types during that time!) and continue through to the fall of the Western Empire (if we get that far.)

- Post your favorite REVERSE type for a given time period/emperor, including any reasons why it's your favorite, and bonus points for including interesting historical background information - if only a sentence or two!

As before, each time slot/emperor gets 48 hours for posting.

Start time of 3pm Eastern Time for each new time period/emperor worked before and is probably what we are most used to by now.

Reverse types of empresses, Caesars, and family members are welcome PROVIDED they do not have a scheduled slot in their own right. (example: post Aelius reverse types under Hadrian's slot, but wait to post Titus reverse types until HIS OWN time slot, even if your coin was struck under Vespasian.)

Provincial coins are welcome!

I'm not sure exactly how to manage the Republican period - for the earlier part I was thinking time slots of ten to twenty years or so, then breaking that into smaller chunks as we move into the late Republic, and giving separate slots for the major figures in the Imperatorial period. However this makes it difficult to know where to place other figures during this time period - supporters of the Imperators, their enemies, as well as the non-Imperator related coinage up to what, the 40’s B.C.? It is something of a mess - I would welcome your suggestions!

A tentative, rough first draft of the schedule might be as follows:

 

What do you think? Is there any interest in a thread like this? What are your thoughts and suggestions?

Edited July 2 by CPK

[Roman Collector]

Sounds like fun!

[expat]

Like most new long running threads it will probably have a few kinks to work out. But it sounds like a great idea for mass participation. I am all for it

[Prieure de Sion]

I'm in 🙂 

[DonnaML]

Good idea. I would suggest 40-year periods for Republican coins if they're included. Not too many people have multiple coins to choose from in every 20-year period. I would begin with 'before 210 BCE" as the first period, and make 210-170 BCE the first 40-year period. So you would then have 170-130, 130-90, 90-50, and then begin the Imperatorial period.

Edited June 25 by DonnaML

[CPK]

1 hour ago, DonnaML said:

Good idea. I would suggest 40-year periods for Republican coins if they're included. Not too many people have multiple coins to choose from in every 20-year period. I would begin with 'before 210 BCE" as the first period, and make 210-170 BCE the first 40-year period. So you would then have 170-130, 130-90, 90-50, and then begin the Imperatorial period.

Thanks! Any suggestions on how to handle the Imperatorial period? The easiest would be to simply keep doing the time slot thing, maybe break it up into smaller 5 or 10 year periods up until 27 B.C. and Augustus. But then the notable individual Imperators wouldn't get their own slots. Or, maybe do time slots but break it up historically - say, from the rise of Pompey to the death of Caesar, and then from that point to Actium/Augustus. Or something similar - you get the idea.

[CPK]

Hey all, here is the new-and-improved schedule. What do you think? I did not have room to also list empresses, Caesars, family members, etc that might have gone with each emperor; but that shouldn't cause too much issue.

I just followed the schedule from the Portrait thread (thanks again to @Severus Alexander) but I think it'll translate okay for reverse types too.

If you all think it looks good I will try to launch the thread tomorrow! Can't wait! 🥳

 

Edited July 1 by CPK

[Severus Alexander]

Excellent, I'm glad you're going ahead with this idea. Gets us almost to Christmas! 🥳

One question: does it have to be our favourite reverse type? or just our favourite reverse? I'm thinking of a collector who has a fairly boring reverse type (e.g. goddess standing) which on their example is very artistically engraved, so it's that collector's favourite reverse for that emperor. Should they post the coin or not?

Hmm... thinking about that raises another issue. Suppose someone has only one coin of a particular emperor, and it has a boring goddess-standing reverse, lacking in artistry. In the portrait thread, we encouraged people to post anyway - it's their favourite because it's their only one! I'm not sure it makes sense to do that here. Surely we want only (or at least mostly!) reverses with some kind of special interest or relevance? (By contrast, it was fun to see a variety of portraits no matter the quality.)

I have just a couple suggestions on the Republican period, and a thought on the Imperial.  The first, very minor suggestion, is to change the first slot to "Before the denarius (c. 211 BC)" rather than before 210 BC... just because the denarius provides a clearer division than a particular date, and one which is numismatically fundamental.

2nd suggestion: I think 40 year time periods are good after that, until we get to 130 BC when reverse types get a lot more varied and interesting. (Before that, people will be posting cool control marks and things like that... but as add-ons to the same small set of basic reverse designs.)  I would suggest dividing the next two slots into four total.  Otherwise I suspect our Republican specialists will find it impossible to choose reverses, plus we'll be inundated with many types, all quite disconnected historically. Certainly 40-year slots aren't remotely comparable to many of the single-emperor slots, especially considering the more frequent historical relevance of Republican types (as opposed to god/goddess standing/seated.) (Though including provincials does redress the balance somewhat.)

To get some idea of numbers here, 129-90 BC corresponds to Crawford 258-342... with some standard reverse types at the beginning of that run, but some serious diversification beginning at Crawford 286 (115 BC).  That's a lot of different reverses to choose from.  Then from 89-50 the numbers get even higher, extending from Crawford 343 all the way to 439, with very diverse reverse types (often multiple for each Crawford number).

Our Republican specialists would be in a better position to suggest divisions, but the following would split up the diversity of reverse types fairly evenly, I think:

129-105 BC = Crawford 258-316 (remember, these aren't very diverse until Cr. 286)

104-85 BC = Crawford 317-353

84-70 BC = Crawford 354-404

69-50 BC = Crawford 405-439

(or the last two could be divided at 75 BC instead of 70 - maybe divides the types up more evenly, at the expense of less even time periods.)

Finally, the thought (not going so far as to call it a suggestion, as I'm very unsure of its merit): since the later empire tends to have multiple emperors sharing the same types, maybe it would make sense to revert to time periods again? Otherwise we'll be repeating the same types again and again for different emperors. Starting around 300, or 330? or 360? we'd go by decade instead of by emperor. Or towards the end, by 20 year periods?  As I said... just a thought! But it might work better.

[DonnaML]

1 hour ago, Severus Alexander said:

Excellent, I'm glad you're going ahead with this idea. Gets us almost to Christmas! 🥳

One question: does it have to be our favourite reverse type? or just our favourite reverse? I'm thinking of a collector who has a fairly boring reverse type (e.g. goddess standing) which on their example is very artistically engraved, so it's that collector's favourite reverse for that emperor. Should they post the coin or not?

Hmm... thinking about that raises another issue. Suppose someone has only one coin of a particular emperor, and it has a boring goddess-standing reverse, lacking in artistry. In the portrait thread, we encouraged people to post anyway - it's their favourite because it's their only one! I'm not sure it makes sense to do that here. Surely we want only (or at least mostly!) reverses with some kind of special interest or relevance? (By contrast, it was fun to see a variety of portraits no matter the quality.)

I have just a couple suggestions on the Republican period, and a thought on the Imperial.  The first, very minor suggestion, is to change the first slot to "Before the denarius (c. 211 BC)" rather than before 210 BC... just because the denarius provides a clearer division than a particular date, and one which is numismatically fundamental.

2nd suggestion: I think 40 year time periods are good after that, until we get to 130 BC when reverse types get a lot more varied and interesting. (Before that, people will be posting cool control marks and things like that... but as add-ons to the same small set of basic reverse designs.)  I would suggest dividing the next two slots into four total.  Otherwise I suspect our Republican specialists will find it impossible to choose reverses, plus we'll be inundated with many types, all quite disconnected historically. Certainly 40-year slots aren't remotely comparable to many of the single-emperor slots, especially considering the more frequent historical relevance of Republican types (as opposed to god/goddess standing/seated.) (Though including provincials does redress the balance somewhat.)

To get some idea of numbers here, 129-90 BC corresponds to Crawford 258-342... with some standard reverse types at the beginning of that run, but some serious diversification beginning at Crawford 286 (115 BC).  That's a lot of different reverses to choose from.  Then from 89-50 the numbers get even higher, extending from Crawford 343 all the way to 439, with very diverse reverse types (often multiple for each Crawford number).

Our Republican specialists would be in a better position to suggest divisions, but the following would split up the diversity of reverse types fairly evenly, I think:

129-105 BC = Crawford 258-316 (remember, these aren't very diverse until Cr. 286)

104-85 BC = Crawford 317-353

84-70 BC = Crawford 354-404

69-50 BC = Crawford 405-439

(or the last two could be divided at 75 BC instead of 70 - maybe divides the types up more evenly, at the expense of less even time periods.)

Finally, the thought (not going so far as to call it a suggestion, as I'm very unsure of its merit): since the later empire tends to have multiple emperors sharing the same types, maybe it would make sense to revert to time periods again? Otherwise we'll be repeating the same types again and again for different emperors. Starting around 300, or 330? or 360? we'd go by decade instead of by emperor. Or towards the end, by 20 year periods?  As I said... just a thought! But it might work better.

Who says you only have to choose one favorite reverse per period, any more than you had to choose one portrait per emperor? That's why I suggested dividing the Republican era into 40-year periods. Yes, that encompasses a lot of Crawford numbers, but I don't see the problem. There aren't enough devoted Republican collectors here to make it worth dragging out the time spent on Republican coins for longer than has now been proposed. Imo!

[David Atherton]

Count me in for the six days I can contribute! 😉

[Ancient Coin Hunter]

This will be fun. Missed this thread til just now!

Of course since I don't collect Republican coins it will be awhile until we get to Caesar and then the 2nd triumvirate of Octavian, Lepidus, and Marc Antony. But I will be watching with admiration.

[CPK]

8 hours ago, Severus Alexander said:

Excellent, I'm glad you're going ahead with this idea. Gets us almost to Christmas! 🥳

One question: does it have to be our favourite reverse type? or just our favourite reverse? I'm thinking of a collector who has a fairly boring reverse type (e.g. goddess standing) which on their example is very artistically engraved, so it's that collector's favourite reverse for that emperor. Should they post the coin or not?

Hmm... thinking about that raises another issue. Suppose someone has only one coin of a particular emperor, and it has a boring goddess-standing reverse, lacking in artistry. In the portrait thread, we encouraged people to post anyway - it's their favourite because it's their only one! I'm not sure it makes sense to do that here. Surely we want only (or at least mostly!) reverses with some kind of special interest or relevance? (By contrast, it was fun to see a variety of portraits no matter the quality.)

I have just a couple suggestions on the Republican period, and a thought on the Imperial.  The first, very minor suggestion, is to change the first slot to "Before the denarius (c. 211 BC)" rather than before 210 BC... just because the denarius provides a clearer division than a particular date, and one which is numismatically fundamental.

2nd suggestion: I think 40 year time periods are good after that, until we get to 130 BC when reverse types get a lot more varied and interesting. (Before that, people will be posting cool control marks and things like that... but as add-ons to the same small set of basic reverse designs.)  I would suggest dividing the next two slots into four total.  Otherwise I suspect our Republican specialists will find it impossible to choose reverses, plus we'll be inundated with many types, all quite disconnected historically. Certainly 40-year slots aren't remotely comparable to many of the single-emperor slots, especially considering the more frequent historical relevance of Republican types (as opposed to god/goddess standing/seated.) (Though including provincials does redress the balance somewhat.)

To get some idea of numbers here, 129-90 BC corresponds to Crawford 258-342... with some standard reverse types at the beginning of that run, but some serious diversification beginning at Crawford 286 (115 BC).  That's a lot of different reverses to choose from.  Then from 89-50 the numbers get even higher, extending from Crawford 343 all the way to 439, with very diverse reverse types (often multiple for each Crawford number).

Our Republican specialists would be in a better position to suggest divisions, but the following would split up the diversity of reverse types fairly evenly, I think:

129-105 BC = Crawford 258-316 (remember, these aren't very diverse until Cr. 286)

104-85 BC = Crawford 317-353

84-70 BC = Crawford 354-404

69-50 BC = Crawford 405-439

(or the last two could be divided at 75 BC instead of 70 - maybe divides the types up more evenly, at the expense of less even time periods.)

Finally, the thought (not going so far as to call it a suggestion, as I'm very unsure of its merit): since the later empire tends to have multiple emperors sharing the same types, maybe it would make sense to revert to time periods again? Otherwise we'll be repeating the same types again and again for different emperors. Starting around 300, or 330? or 360? we'd go by decade instead of by emperor. Or towards the end, by 20 year periods?  As I said... just a thought! But it might work better.

Thanks for the suggestions!

My thought was to make this similar to the Portrait thread and to post your favorite reverse(s) - whether that be an unusual, rare type, a particularly artistically engraved common type, or even just your run-of-the-mill average god/goddess. Just as with the Portraits, it doesn't have to be special - just your personal favorite - for whatever reason. (Even if the reason is, that's the only one you have. 😉 )

Of course, I'm hoping that we'll get a nice selection of really interesting, rare, unusual, or artistic reverses, and I'm confident that we will! But I also don't want to discourage anyone from participating who doesn't have that to offer. The point is to have fun, see the variety out there, and hopefully learn more about the different types!

As for the denarius date c. 211 B.C., that can easily be done.

I see what you're saying about the time slots in the Republican period - not a lot happens until the 130's B.C. and then the variety starts to kick into high gear. But I'm not too concerned because I think we'll want to do this thread a bit differently from the Portrait thread - since there is so much more variety with reverse types, I'd kind of hate to limit it to just one per post like we (more or less) did with the Portrait thread. My idea is to see as many varied and interesting reverses as possible, so posting more than one favorite is welcome and encouraged!

Regarding the suggestion about going back to time periods for the later Empire, that's an interesting thought and I'd like to hear more input on that. What do the rest of you say - is there enough variety in reverse types to sustain slots for individual emperors, or should we divide into time periods?

[Roman Collector]

I like this reverse type because nothing exemplifies the period like a prow! It's an ICONIC design. I like the coin because it's big and chunky!

Anonymous, Second Punic War, 218-202 BCE.
Roman Republican Æ as, 27.8 g, 31.1 mm, 1 h.
Uncertain mint south of Rome (Campania?).
Obv: Laureate head of bearded Janus, I above.
Rev: Prow of galley, right; I above, ROMA below.
Refs: Group D1, McCabe, Andrew. "The Anonymous Struck Bronze Coinage of the Roman Republic" in Essays in honour of Roberto Russo / ed. by Peter G. van Alfen and Richard B. Witschonke. - Zürich ; London : Numismatica Ars Classica NAC, 2013, pp. 141-144.

[CPK]

23 minutes ago, Roman Collector said:

I like this reverse type because nothing exemplifies the period like a prow! It's an ICONIC design. I like the coin because it's big and chunky!

Anonymous, Second Punic War, 218-202 BCE.
Roman Republican Æ as, 27.8 g, 31.1 mm, 1 h.
Uncertain mint south of Rome (Campania?).
Obv: Laureate head of bearded Janus, I above.
Rev: Prow of galley, right; I above, ROMA below.
Refs: Group D1, McCabe, Andrew. "The Anonymous Struck Bronze Coinage of the Roman Republic" in Essays in honour of Roberto Russo / ed. by Peter G. van Alfen and Richard B. Witschonke. - Zürich ; London : Numismatica Ars Classica NAC, 2013, pp. 141-144.

I like it! But wait - this is still only the SUGGESTIONS thread. I haven't started the official thread yet! 😮😜

[Severus Alexander]

2 hours ago, CPK said:

My thought was to make this similar to the Portrait thread and to post your favorite reverse(s)

So we’re not restricted to favourite types per se. Sounds good 👍

2 hours ago, CPK said:

(Even if the reason is, that's the only one you have. 😉 )

Well, OK, if you’re sure the thread won’t become a march of mediocre goddesses standing. You’re probably right. And I suppose even if you’re wrong, a gentle nudge from Caesar would correct course. 😁

10 hours ago, DonnaML said:

There aren't enough devoted Republican collectors here to make it worth dragging out the time spent on Republican coins for longer than has now been proposed.

3 hours ago, CPK said:

and then the variety starts to kick into high gear. But I'm not too concerned

Blatant discrimination against Republican collectors! 😝😆 Don’t you agree that Severus Alexander’s interesting reverse types aren’t remotely a match for Republican reverse types from 89 to 50 BC? That’s a massive imbalance. I’m really surprised at the resistance to my suggestion, frankly… it seems so obvious to me! (Your first draft seemed to take it into account, too.)

I’d be curious to know what @Phil Davis thinks. Note that I wasn’t imagining limiting oneself to a single reverse type, not at all. (This isn’t how the portrait thread worked anyway, we just encouraged people to say which one was their favourite.) The imbalance problem arises even if we’re expected to post several.

One other unrelated question… is the goal specifically to post reverses only, i.e. the anvil die? Or is it to post not-a-portrait of an emperor? Because sometimes a coin has an interesting scene on the obverse, e.g. some sestertii of Caligula and Domitian, or think of Caesar’s elephant denarii. These seem within the spirit of the proposed thread.

Can you tell I like to be clear on the rules ahead of time? I’m really annoying to play board games with. 🙃

[John Conduitt]

2 minutes ago, Severus Alexander said:

Blatant discrimination against Republican collectors! 😝😆 Don’t you agree that Severus Alexander’s interesting reverse types aren’t remotely a match for Republican reverse types from 89 to 50 BC? That’s a massive imbalance. I’m really surprised at the resistance to my suggestion, frankly… it seems so obvious to me! (Your first draft seemed to take it into account, too.)

Perhaps it needs to steer away from an emperor-based timeline for the whole thing. Of course, people are going to post the best standing deity they have if that's all they have for a given emperor. But then we'll have a few days of stickperson Speses when we're doing Tetricus and yet the same amount of time for Antoninus Pius or Gallienus. Maybe it could be based on something completely different, like themes (ships, cats, Venus, travel, pigs, bridges, battles etc).

[DonnaML]

28 minutes ago, Severus Alexander said:

So we’re not restricted to favourite types per se. Sounds good 👍

Well, OK, if you’re sure the thread won’t become a march of mediocre goddesses standing. You’re probably right. And I suppose even if you’re wrong, a gentle nudge from Caesar would correct course. 😁

Blatant discrimination against Republican collectors! 😝😆 Don’t you agree that Severus Alexander’s interesting reverse types aren’t remotely a match for Republican reverse types from 89 to 50 BC? That’s a massive imbalance. I’m really surprised at the resistance to my suggestion, frankly… it seems so obvious to me! (Your first draft seemed to take it into account, too.)

I’d be curious to know what @Phil Davis thinks. Note that I wasn’t imagining limiting oneself to a single reverse type, not at all. (This isn’t how the portrait thread worked anyway, we just encouraged people to say which one was their favourite.) The imbalance problem arises even if we’re expected to post several.

One other unrelated question… is the goal specifically to post reverses only, i.e. the anvil die? Or is it to post not-a-portrait of an emperor? Because sometimes a coin has an interesting scene on the obverse, e.g. some sestertii of Caligula and Domitian, or think of Caesar’s elephant denarii. These seem within the spirit of the proposed thread.

Can you tell I like to be clear on the rules ahead of time? I’m really annoying to play board games with. 🙃

I plan to post each coin in its entirety.

As a Roman Republican collector myself, I don't feel discriminated against. I have very little before 130 BCE anyway, and I will cope with subsequent periods whether they're 40, 30, or 20 years!

Edited July 1 by DonnaML

[DonnaML]

13 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

Perhaps it needs to steer away from an emperor-based timeline for the whole thing. Of course, people are going to post the best standing deity they have if that's all they have for a given emperor. But then we'll have a few days of stickperson Speses when we're doing Tetricus and yet the same amount of time for Antoninus Pius or Gallienus. Maybe it could be based on something completely different, like themes (ships, cats, Venus, travel, pigs, bridges, battles etc).

I thought the whole point of this was to be at least roughly chronological. We've had all sorts of thematic threads before: pigs, elephants, dogs, lions, eagles and other birds, horses with and without riders, bigas and quadrigas, temples, combat scenes, different weapons, boats, all sorts of different deities and personifications,, and so on. I see no reason to do all that all over again.

Edited July 1 by DonnaML

[CPK]

Thanks for the thoughts everyone! That's the purpose of this thread. 🙂 

@Severus Alexander Point taken about the risks of having too many boring/common reverses posted. It might be a good idea to stress that there has to be something interesting about the reverse - be it rarity, historical significance, artistry, or high grade, etc.

I'm also open to expanding the Republican section too, I suppose it would be better to err on the side of allowing more time to post than less. @DonnaML is one of our principal collectors of Republican coins so I welcome her input here as well.

I would like to keep with the Emperor theme as much as we can. I think it would be easier and more intuitive to post by reign than by date. I realize that some emperors had a lot more or less variety than others - there may be ways to help fix that by combining more emperors. But, I also don't want to make this too complicated or exhausting before we even start! There may be some slow/more boring days, but hopefully we'll be able to work through them. 🙂 

As for coins with interesting obverse scenes, there aren't that many, and so I would say it might be within the spirit of the thread to allow for those. And anyway, I'd imagine in most cases both obverse and reverse would be pictured (as a single image.) That's how all my coin pictures are composed.

 

[Severus Alexander]

20 minutes ago, CPK said:

@Severus Alexander Point taken about the risks of having too many boring/common reverses posted. It might be a good idea to stress that there has to be something interesting about the reverse - be it rarity, historical significance, artistry, or high grade, etc.

I think that should do the trick! The rest sounds good too.

20 minutes ago, CPK said:

And anyway, I'd imagine in most cases both obverse and reverse would be pictured (as a single image.) That's how all my coin pictures are composed.

Well, of course. I didn’t mean to suggest anyone would post only half a coin, though I was obviously unclear about that, since @DonnaML misunderstood my comment too. It was only about the decision whether to post the coin or not. “Oops, I can’t post that sestertius with the Caligula sacrificing scene, it’s on the obverse.” I’m sure a note about it being OK to post obverses “with a reverse-like character” or something like that would suffice.

Edited July 1 by Severus Alexander