Caligula: A Rare Denarius with Germanicus and a Fantastic Provenance

[Curtisimo]

Roman Empire
Gaius (Caligula), with Germanicus, 37-41.
AR Denarius, Lugdunum mint, struck AD 37
(19 mm, 4h, 3.38 g)
Obv.: C CAESAR AVG GERM•P.M•TR•POT Bare head of Gaius to right. 
Rev.: GERMANICVS • CAES • PC • CAES • AVG • GERM Bare head of Germanicus to right. 
Ref.: BMC 13. Cohen 4. RIC 12.
Ex Howard Coppuck Levis Collection (1859-1935†), Ars Classica XI, lot 316 (June 18, 1925); Ex Walter F. Stoecklin Collection, Amriswil (1888-1975†), Obolos 9, lot 164 (March 25, 2018)

Over the last few years I have been working on a project to collect a representative series of interesting denarii from the time of Julius Caesar to the death of Severus Alexander. For this sub-collection I am looking for coins that are interesting for reasons that go beyond just the grade. You can read more about my progress on write ups below.

Curtisimo’s Imperial Denarii

Caligula and Germanicus
If the ancient sources are to be believed [1][2], Caligula (Gaius) became emperor with almost universal popularity. He was embraced by the senate (who were ready for anyone other than Tiberius), the Roman army (who were responsible for his nickname, Caligula = Little boots) and the people. Almost all of this popularity was down to the fame and prestige of his father, Germanicus. This coin celebrates his paternal ancestry for all its worth with a bust of Germanicus on the reverse.

Left: Bust of Caligula (Metropolitan Museum of Art) Right: Bust of Germanicus which was defaced in antiquity (British Museum).

As we all know, Caligula’s golden boy image wouldn’t even last a full year after he was proclaimed emperor. Some of the sources seem to suggest that an illness in the later half of AD 37 was the turning point. Interestingly, this coin would have been stuck about the time of this illness.

Another theory is that the death of his sister Drusilla in AD 38 was the catalyst for his erratic behavior. I think it is far more likely that his darker side was there from the beginning but it simply took a while for perception to catch up to reality.

The only contemporary account of his behavior from an actual eye witness comes from Philo of Alexandria. Philo was a Jewish philosopher who went to Rome as an ambassador to plead the case of the Jews after violent ethic unrest in Alexandria. Philo spent the audience following after Caligula as he walked around inspecting his palace and giving orders for various upgrades and improvements. Caligula greeted Philo’s embassy with an accusation as follows;

"You are haters of God, inasmuch as you do not think that I am a god, I who am already confessed to be a god by every other nation, but who am refused that appellation by you." - Philo [2]

Instead of hearing their petition, he used the audience to judge whether they were evil for refusing to accept him as a god. He finally decided they were simply foolish and sent them away without resolution.

This exchange suggests that Caligula was not insane as many ancient sources would have us believe. Instead, he was deeply self centered and drunk with unlimited power. This attitude and his inept leadership would be his final undoing. He was assassinated in the underground halls of the Imperial palace on January 24, AD 41.

Left: Plaque on the Palatine Hill indicating the area where Caligula was assassinated. Right: One if the tunnel coordinators where the assassination took place. (Author’s photos)

Silver Denarii of Caligula
Denarii of Caligula and Claudius are surprisingly rare. There have been a number of theories discussed as to why. I will briefly outline a few below. See this FORVM thread for more discussion on the topic.

The Coinage Reform of Nero: AD 64
This theory postulates that the coins of Caligula, Claudius and Nero were recalled and melted down in the coinage reform of Nero in the year 64. This theory doesn’t explain why the coins of Augustus and Tiberius are so common. Presumably they too would have been recalled and melted down.

An Oversupply of Tiberius and Augustus Denarii
This theory postulates that the supply of silver in the economy was so high that further striking in precious metal was mostly unnecessary for almost a generation. Imperial expenditures would still have included the upkeep of the army which would need to have been paid in coin. I don’t know whether coins at the time were struck in advance or struck as needed from available bullion. If struck in advance, I suppose there could have been a sizable store of Tiberius “tribute penny” denarii in the treasury to draw from. The remainder of the imperial expenditures would then have been offset by imperial revenues, presumably paid in existing denarii.

At the same time, 17 years (Caligula + Claudius) seems like an incredibly long time for the mint output to have been so low. This is especially true when we consider the profligate spending attributed to Caligula in the early part of his reign. @dougsmit and @Andrew McCabe have an interesting discussion on this topic here.

Damnatio Memoriae
This theory proposes that the rarity of Caligula silver can be explained by a Damnatio Memoriae. In essence, coins of Caligula were recalled and melted down so as to destroy the memory of him. Of course, this wouldn’t explain why denarii of Claudius are also rare. As far as I am aware, the bronze for both emperors aren’t particularly rare either.

…in short, I have no idea why Caligula denarii are so rare but I’m glad I have one now.

A Fantastic Provenance
Through my own research I was able to recover a great unlisted provenance for this coin.

The Howard Coppuck Levis Collection

Howard Levis was born in Mount Holly, New Jersey on March 21, 1859. He graduated from Columbia Law School and took up a career with General Electric during the pioneering days of electrical grid expansion in North America and Europe. The British Museum lists him as an electrical engineer, but it is unclear whether his role was legal (and managerial) or technical. His background, and the fact that he was described as “council for the General Electric company” in his obituary may suggest the former.

He and his wife, Jane, moved from Schenectady, NY to London in 1898 so he could take up the role of Managing Director for GE’s European holdings at the British Thompson Houston Company (BTH). In 1916 he was made chairman of BTH. In the 1920s he oversaw the merger of BTH with several electrical companies into Associated Electrical Industries (AEI), of which he was made chairman in 1928. He retired in 1932 and moved to Biarritz, France, where he died on June 19, 1935.

Top: Workers at the British Thompson Houston factory in Rugby heading home after their shift in the 1910s. Bottom: the main office block of the BTH factory (1910s). This is most likely where Levis held an office.

Howard Levis was the author of several books on art, history and collecting. His compilation of royal portrait engravings, BRAZILIΩLOGIA BOOKE OF KINGS, is available to browse online at the Smithsonian Library. It was this interest in English Royal portraits that led him to collect English coins, which then led him into collecting ancient Roman imperial portrait coins. His collection of Roman portraits was one of the most complete ever assembled. It was sold, along with my coin, in Ars Classica XI in June of 1925.

The Stoecklin Collection
I have written about the Stoecklin Collection on previous occasions. A great overview of it can be read on CoinsWeekly. I think it is possible that Walter F. Stoecklin purchased this example directly from Ars Classica in 1925. If so, this coin has a mostly complete provenance going back almost 100 years.

References 
[1] https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Caligula*.html

[2] https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Embassy_to_Gaius#II

[3] https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=58445.0

[4] https://web.archive.org/web/20050306132153/http://www.marconi.com/Home/about_us/Our History/GEC Heritage/British Thompson-Houston History

[5] https://library.si.edu/digital-library/book/baziliologiaboo00levi

Please post your;

• Coins of Caligula 
• Rarest imperial denarius
• Coins from an interesting old collection 
• Coins that are rare for unknown reasons 
• Anything you think would be fun!

Edited December 15, 2023 by Curtisimo

[Al Kowsky]

Curtis, excellent research on this coin ☺️!

[David Atherton]

Curtis, I always look forward to your posts and this latest is a prime example why. In depth and endlessly fascinating with a fantastic coin to boot!

[Curtisimo]

Thank you for the kind words @Al Kowskyand @David Atherton!

9 hours ago, David Atherton said:

Curtis, I always look forward to your posts

Thank you, I appreciate that David. I also look forward to your deep dives into the Flavian dynasty. Your posts have influenced my targets for those emperors, including my recent left facing Titus.

[CPK]

Great coin and write-up. Thank you for sharing!

[Limes]

Great coin, the portraits are both very clear. Thanks for showing it. And very informative write up too. 

Denarii of Caligula and Claudius are both very rare. You cited the three theories that are generally used to explain the rarity of the denarii of both emperors. But I think all three theories insufficiently explain the situation. Both Caligula and Claudius had good reasons to show the populace their heritage to legitimate their rule, and strike coins displaying this. So, I believe other unknown circumstances were playing at the time, and likely they will remain forever unknown to us. 

Anyway, here's my budget non-dynastic Caligula denarius. I think it's the cheapest denarius of Caligula a collector could acquire 😁

[Curtisimo]

Thanks for the kind words @CPK!

@Limes, that is a wonderful budget example. Even budget examples can get pretty pricey sometimes if they have been vetted as genuine by a trusted source. Congratulations on a great coin and deal!

I was beginning to worry that no one else on the board had any Caligula coins they wanted to share! 🙂 

[Limes]

1 hour ago, Curtisimo said:

Thanks for the kind words @CPK!

@Limes, that is a wonderful budget example. Even budget examples can get pretty pricey sometimes if they have been vetted as genuine by a trusted source. Congratulations on a great coin and deal!

I was beginning to worry that no one else on the board had any Caligula coins they wanted to share! 🙂 

Thanks @Curtisimo! Wanting to get the popular 12C's in silver, a denarius of Caligula is a must, and I'm still very happy to have scored this one. Again coingratulations on yours. 

[DonnaML]

A beautiful coin, and "fantastic" is the right word for the provenance. There's something about the look of those pre-World War II French catalogs that I find both appealing and evocative. 

I have no idea which, if any, is correct among the theories trying to explain the remarkable scarcity of Caligula and Claudius denarii. Not one of them adequately acounts for all the known facts. But who knows? Perhaps someday, someone will find a hoard of thousands of them (perhaps buried in Baron de Chambrier's basement), and we'll all be able to afford one. 

My only Caligula is this very mediocre Vesta as* (by far the most common bronze of his), not counting Germanicus and Agrippa asses issued during his reign:

*On the other hand, I paid only $300 for it a few years ago, and cgb.fr is currently offering this one for 400 Euros, so maybe mine isn't so bad after all:

 

 

Edited December 13, 2023 by DonnaML

[Curtisimo]

1 hour ago, DonnaML said:

Perhaps someday, someone will find a hoard of thousands of them (perhaps buried in Baron de Chambrier's basement)

Lol 🤣. That guy needs to stop hogging all the good coins in his fancy castle!

1 hour ago, DonnaML said:

On the other hand, I paid only $300 for it a few years ago, and cgb.fr is currently offering this one for 400 Euros, so maybe mine isn't so bad after all:

Nice coin with a pleasant patina. I think that is a very reasonable price for your coin. Especially compared to the other example for sale.

[dougsmit]

8 hours ago, DonnaML said:

*On the other hand, I paid only $300 for it a few years ago, and cgb.fr is currently offering this one for 400 Euros, so maybe mine isn't so bad after all:

 

 

Donna's coin and that poor specimen remind me of my two Vesta asses.  The green one is has wear to Fine  but I found it to have eye appeal enough that I was willing to pay $213 in 2001.  The other one has been with me for many (more than 30?) years but never was assigned a catalog number in my collection because I considered it embarrassingly rough despite the fact that it has less wear and more detail than the green one.  I pulled it from a junk box ($10?) mostly because it is an example of the relatively rare variation of the as that used the obverse legend common on sestertii naming Caligula as the grandson of Augustus rather than the son of Germanicus.  To this day, I have trouble understanding why so few people find this distinction significant.  I have never considered myself a 'condition snob' and I most certainly own other coins worse than this one but I never could bring myself to admit it to the numbered flock.  Also, I never was able to find a decent specimen with that legend in my price bracket.  I like the style.  The legends are clear and full.  I just hate poor surfaces.  Would it slab as EF 5/5 1/5???  Today, we have DOGS like that CBG being offered for 400 Euros?  That is why I no longer buy coins.  At the moment I have no intention of selling any of my coins and this would not be the first coin I'd cut loose were I do sell some but I still have not taken the trouble to adopt it formally even though I have had it in foster care for a very long time.  It hurts me today that so many collectors fail to find interest in anything but wear based grade.  Do strike, surfaces, style, legibility, and eye appeal mean nothing?    I agree with Donna's (not so bad) rating of her coin and suspect that it will someday be sold by dealers as 'about Proof' (based on how inflation seems to be moving lately).  It is common for people my age to bemoan what we see as the fact that the world is going to 'Hell in a Handbasket.'  The coins I have been seeing offered as exceptional in some big sales are starting to get worse even in grade but more disturbing to me is that so many of them are just boring or ugly. 

[DonnaML]

9 minutes ago, dougsmit said:

 

 

Donna's coin and that poor specimen remind me of my two Vesta asses.  The green one is has wear to Fine  but I found it to have eye appeal enough that I was willing to pay $213 in 2001.  The other one has been with me for many (more than 30?) years but never was assigned a catalog number in my collection because I considered it embarrassingly rough despite the fact that it has less wear and more detail than the green one.  I pulled it from a junk box ($10?) mostly because it is an example of the relatively rare variation of the as that used the obverse legend common on sestertii naming Caligula as the grandson of Augustus rather than the son of Germanicus.  To this day, I have trouble understanding why so few people find this distinction significant.  I have never considered myself a 'condition snob' and I most certainly own other coins worse than this one but I never could bring myself to admit it to the numbered flock.  Also, I never was able to find a decent specimen with that legend in my price bracket.  I like the style.  The legends are clear and full.  I just hate poor surfaces.  Would it slab as EF 5/5 1/5???  Today, we have DOGS like that CBG being offered for 400 Euros?  That is why I no longer buy coins.  At the moment I have no intention of selling any of my coins and this would not be the first coin I'd cut loose were I do sell some but I still have not taken the trouble to adopt it formally even though I have had it in foster care for a very long time.  It hurts me today that so many collectors fail to find interest in anything but wear based grade.  Do strike, surfaces, style, legibility, and eye appeal mean nothing?    I agree with Donna's (not so bad) rating of her coin and suspect that it will someday be sold by dealers as 'about Proof' (based on how inflation seems to be moving lately).  It is common for people my age to bemoan what we see as the fact that the world is going to 'Hell in a Handbasket.'  The coins I have been seeing offered as exceptional in some big sales are starting to get worse even in grade but more disturbing to me is that so many of them are just boring or ugly. 

Your first coin would probably be offered at retail for $800-$1,000 these days, described as at least AU. I think it's got a lot of eye-appeal myself.

That 400 Euro gem from CGB is described as "XF"!

Grade: XF | Abbreviations
Catalog: C.27 RIC.38 RIC.38 BMC/RE.46 BN/R.55 RCV.1803 (1200$)
Material: Copper
Weight: 10.47 g
CALIGULA As 37-38 Rome copper
Obverse : C CAESAR AVG GERMANICVS PON M TR POT Tête nue de Caligula à gauche (O°1)
Reverse : VESTA/ S|C Vesta voilée, assise à gauche, tenant un sceptre de la main gauche et une patère de la droite
Commentary : Exemplaire centré. Joli revers. Usure régulière. Patine foncée

[CPK]

7 hours ago, DonnaML said:

Your first coin would probably be offered at retail for $800-$1,000 these days, described as at least AU. I think it's got a lot of eye-appeal myself.

That 400 Euro gem from CGB is described as "XF"!

Grade: XF | Abbreviations
Catalog: C.27 RIC.38 RIC.38 BMC/RE.46 BN/R.55 RCV.1803 (1200$)
Material: Copper
Weight: 10.47 g
CALIGULA As 37-38 Rome copper
Obverse : C CAESAR AVG GERMANICVS PON M TR POT Tête nue de Caligula à gauche (O°1)
Reverse : VESTA/ S|C Vesta voilée, assise à gauche, tenant un sceptre de la main gauche et une patère de la droite
Commentary : Exemplaire centré. Joli revers. Usure régulière. Patine foncée

I honestly don't understand cgb's method in grading coins. How on earth can that coin be "extremely fine"?! At best, I'd give it a F/VF. I'm glad they include photos of the coins, which makes a grade estimate unnecessary, otherwise I'm afraid I'd be very disappointed with my purchases there.

While on the subject of cgb.fr, I have to admit my English-reading mind enjoys the descriptions - who doesn't like a 'jolly bust' and an 'agreeable reverse' - especially when the centering is 'exemplary'? 😄 (apologies to the French speakers! 😉)

[Prieure de Sion]

On 12/12/2023 at 5:26 AM, Curtisimo said:

Roman Empire
Gaius (Caligula), with Germanicus, 37-41.
AR Denarius, Lugdunum mint, struck AD 37
(19 mm, 4h, 3.38 g)
Obv.: C CAESAR AVG GERM•P.M•TR•POT Bare head of Gaius to right. 
Rev.: GERMANICVS • CAES • PC • CAES • AVG • GERM Bare head of Germanicus to right. 
Ref.: BMC 13. Cohen 4. RIC 12.
Ex Howard Coppuck Levis Collection (1859-1935†), Ars Classica XI, lot 316 (June 18, 1925); Ex Walter F. Stoecklin Collection, Amriswil (1888-1975†), Obolos 9, lot 164 (March 25, 2018)

Thanks first for the fantastic write up (again)!

A wonderful Caligula Denarius. The "problem" with this type is that it is incredibly expensive - and you can get many other denarii for the same price. But he is something very special. If I ever have too much money left over, it would also be on my wish list. Great coin! Congratulations.

[DonnaML]

5 hours ago, CPK said:

At best, I'd give it a F/VF.

I think you're being too generous. At best, I'd give it a VG. Or even a G.

I'm not all that surprised by the XF, though, considering that cgb and other French dealers classify the majority of the coins they sell as "AU," almost regardless of condition. But as you say, as long as there's a photo, one can make one's own judgments, and ignore the dealer's "grade" as just puffery.  

 

[Curtisimo]

19 hours ago, dougsmit said:

I like the style.  The legends are clear and full.  I just hate poor surfaces.

I find myself judging some coins I buy harshly for poor surfaces as well even when I think they look pretty decent in-hand. I’ve come to realize that it is because I am not very good at photographing rough surfaces. Often my photos make the coin look worse than it does in-hand and that bothers me.

This one gets a pass because it was my first ancient coin purchase ever. It is probably my most photographed coin as well because I’ve been trying to capture its in-hand look since I bought it. This newest photo is acceptable.

Your top example with the green patina is very nice! It never hurts to have a spare meant to illustrate something interesting. Thanks for sharing Doug!

Edited December 15, 2023 by Curtisimo

[Curtisimo]

10 hours ago, Prieure de Sion said:

Thanks first for the fantastic write up (again)!

A wonderful Caligula Denarius. The "problem" with this type is that it is incredibly expensive - and you can get many other denarii for the same price. But he is something very special. If I ever have too much money left over, it would also be on my wish list. Great coin! Congratulations.

Thank you @Prieure de Sion! I definitely take your point about how pricey these can get. I am pretty particular about the reverse types I choose for my denarii so my silver collection grows pretty slowly and expensively as it is. This familial issue with Germanicus was a must have type for me! Plus, it felt wrong not to have Caligula in my imperial silver collection. I feels nice to mark off one of my “one of these days” coins from my list.

11 hours ago, CPK said:

I honestly don't understand cgb's method in grading coins. How on earth can that coin be "extremely fine"?! At best, I'd give it a F/VF. I'm glad they include photos of the coins

5 hours ago, DonnaML said:

I'm not all that surprised by the XF, though, considering that cgb and other French dealers classify the majority of the coins they sell as "AU,"

The grading in modern auctions has become completely worthless to me as a buyer. I don’t even look at them or consider them in my purchase. I think the advent of cheap photography has made companies feel like they can make up their own internal grading scale. You can tell which dealers were around before it was common to photograph lower tier coins because their grading is still consistent (such as Frank Robinson).

The new trick for collectors that buy mostly online is getting proficient at interpreting coin photos from the various dealers / auction houses. I respect houses like CNG whose photos are always inferior to the in-hand look. @Severus Alexanderwas intentionally the same way with his photos for AMCC.

Considering all of this I understand why high-rollers like to personally view lots at floor auctions or have a representative do so.

[Coinmaster]

On 12/12/2023 at 5:26 AM, Curtisimo said:

Through my own research I was able to recover a great unlisted provenance for this coin.

@Curtisimo, this is just fantastic. Please tell me how you approach such a research on the provenance of coins?

And many thanks for sharing this great topic and wonderful coin. A true gem in your collection!

[Qcumbor]

Fascinating !

No other Word comes to my mind 

Q

[dougsmit]

As much as I dislike the practice of slabbing and third party grading, I am quite convinced that the fraternity of coin dealers got what they deserved due to their abuses in grading.  People today can and often prefer to buy coins from someone who knows nothing beyond have to read a slab label.  When I had been in the hobby for a few decades I started being bothered by a lack of coins described for sale bearing grades under VF.  Previously, I had seen coins graded F or VG that were still attractive to my eye but it came to be common to see a Fine coin termed VF 'For These'.   This reminded me of time in school when tests could be graded on a 'curve' where an 'A' was defined as the best any student had done even if that meant no one had answered half the questions correctly.  Writing tests requires a fine line between creating something so easy that everyone got 100% and one so obtuse that those fluent in the language would not be able to find the verb in the question (because it had no verb).  

My green coin is quite worn.  I have faith that our friends at NGC would call it no better than Fine because that is the correct grade for a coin with that much wear.  Where I despise NGC is their parallel offering of a lower tier of slab product that does not modify that letter grade with the numeric ratings for strike and surface.  Fairly, my brown coin would grade EF for lack of wear but get the lowest surface grade making it obvious that the coin is not desirable.  In a cheap tier slab, the green coin would rate F and the brown one would still be EF.  In the old days, that brown coin would have been downgraded to no better than VG simply to point out it was as ugly as sin.  Today, many people recognize no grade other than wear.  That is the fault of NGC and their cheap tier slabs.  Now it is 'normal' for a coin to be mint state and pug-ugly.  Perhaps we need a new grade to accompany 'fleur-du-coin'.  How would the French say 'immaculate weed'?