The most realistic portraits seem to occur in the earlier issues - later coins become less humanised - depicting the head of state as it were. With Trajan this is pretty clear, with Nero almost the reverse. Illustrating (if anything) a change in Roman society. This post relates to Domitian, at COS VIII the earlier - and more natural portraiture, contrasts to the later coins I have. Here is a COS XIIII for a portrait comparison. Anything relating to this would be welcome.
How is it possible to know if a coin's portrait of an emperor is realistic? I've often wondered if it's even theoretically possible to know, to a reasonable certainty, what any ancient Roman Emperor looked like. It seems that coin portraits were based on busts/models of the emperor in most cases. But were the busts idealized? Wouldn't most emperors want to be modeled in the most flattering representation? More youthful? More robust? And then, wouldn't the engravers make the coin portraits even more flattering, in the hopes of preserving their jobs? I don't know if there is any reliable historical record on these matters. Here's an example of two busts of Claudius and five different portraits on aurei: Which bust is the most realistic? Which coin is the most realistic? Are any of the coins based on the illustrated busts? Which coin portrait do you like? Is it because it's the most artistic, or the most realistic? My preference is #5 -- Rome 44 AD -- and I own this coin. But Claudius has a weak chin in the portrait (as he does in many of his coin portraits) and I tend to think it's not only the most realistic portrait but also one of the more artistic ones I've seen on a Claudius aureus. I'd be curious to know if there is any empirical data on topic -- if it's been studied by scholars -- and how other collectors on this site assess the realism or lack thereof of the portraits on their own coins.
I'd think of course the emperors for the most part would want an idealized version of themselves on their coinage. Nearly everyone has an ideal, if not necessarily entirely realistic, version of themselves that they try and portray to the world. Just take a glance at social media and people's portraits of themselves and how many filters and whatnot are applied. Now imagine you know that image will be seen by millions everyday for years. How careful would someone be with what they put out to the masses? They'd want something that projects a powerful image, reflects how they see themselves, but also contain (at least in the first half of the empire) recognizable features. The classic case of this is Augustus. Until he died he always portrayed himself as a man in the prime of his life on his coins. We'll never know what he looked like in his last few years. Take at look at your own country's modern currency (if it contains portraits) and count how many pimples you see. It's nearly impossible to know exactly what someone looked like unless you got to be in the room with them. That said, as far as Roman coins go I think you look for a consensus both with what is on the coinage and also any statutes/busts that still exist. Somewhere in there you get an idea of what they looked like in real life, but you'll never get the warts and all version. Have to wait for time travel to get invented for that one.
I would argue the opposite of what you're suggesting. Realism (or more specifically verism and naturalism) as a trend in portraiture came into being after the Julio-Claudians. Essentially, Julio-Claudian portraiture was a rejection Republican naturalism and verism, instead embracing idealism and youthfulness. This is perhaps most obvious in the portraiture of Augustus, but I think it can be said for the dynasty as a whole. The Flavians reintroduced verism and naturalism in their portraiture, and this continued with Nerva and his successors. Certainly, there was a return to idealized and youthful portraiture during the reign of Domitian, but this was an exception. Here is my sestertius of Trajan. I think that the portrait is quite successful and it could be described as realistic. Photo taken by NAC
This thread reminds me of an event some 30-40 years ago. At that time the government of Canada wished to honor Lester B Pearson A Prime Minister of Canada with a statue and commissioned an artist who I actually knew. He began to work however very quickly a problem emerged. It became to be known as the battle of the warts. As you can see with the above picture he has very few warts. These blemishes were excised from his official portraits. Even after his death the number and location of these warts were the subject of some heated controversy. So what does this little story have to do with the thread? A portrait is by definition a careful journey between accuracy and flattery. To create an image something that we may call today a power image must be recognizable but also give confidence in that individuals worthiness to rule. Some of their physical features may in fact be exaggerated as long as they do not convey weakness or stupidity. As an example we have this iconic image of Augustus This image which is most notably depicted on the famous statue from Prima Porta it is likely dated sometime after 20 BC. and this image served as the model for some of his coins Denarius of Augustus Lugdunim 2 BC -14 AD Obv Head right laureate Rv Caius and Lucius togate standing facing . RIC 208 3.81 grams 18mm Photo by W. Hansen This image was a watershed as it was a clear break from the image projected by Augustus during the late Republic and Early Principate. The face is now characterized by a calm serene expression , the hair is now carefully arranged and the slight turn of the head conveys a remote dignity. In fact the whole composition is carefully done within the canon of the Classical principles of symmetry as espoused in this work by the Greek artist Polyclitus The Doryphorus a partial Roman copy from Pompeii The lost original was probably cast circa 440 BC. As with the statue from Prima Porta this image evokes a very similar visceral response from the viewer. There is an understated elegance to both images, some thing that Augustus strived to create with his "new" imagery. Thus when attempting to discern the veracity of any given image you must be cognizant of the artist conventions of the time.
Some earlier portraits I'm fond of: After Antoninus Pius I think they become notably less lifelike. (To be contrasted with "accurate." "Lifelike" just means they look like a real person - but not necessarily the person they're portraying!)
I think some features of Roman Emperors were accurate according to their busts, like the pictures above, Trajan's long head, hair and face (either a big head or he was a bit chubby), Vespasian's long nose, Claudius' face and hair, Nero's fat head, Septimius Severus' hair and face ect. I would say that they're pretty accurate and are good documentations of their portraits. Exagerated features requested by Emperors would probably have been small changes, but nothing that really changes the look of their faces.
One of my favorite things about Gallic empire coins is the interesting dichotomy between extremely naturalistic portraits and extremely abstract reverses. Here we have an excellent, naturalistic rendition of Postumus but the Victory on the reverse is a Picasso-esque exercise in abstraction. Some art historians maintain that later Roman artists simply had neither the technical skill or motivation to make classically-attractive art. This is not true, as we can see in one single coin both extremes of Roman artistic styles.
Afaik the Gallic empire wanted to show that they were better than the Roman empire so for starters they issued coins of higher quality, both in artistry as well as in the silver composition (20% compared to <5% in the Roman issues).
