[ancients] Two Spanish bulls of Augustus

I picked up these two provincial asses earlier this month, largely because I've been wanting a coin of Augustus for some time now. As a bonus, they came with an interesting provenance (Ex Archer M. Huntington Collection). Steve probably lassoed the best bull from the auction, but I think these two are not too shabby either! They're my first Roman provincial coins from Spain... likely not to be the last ones now.

As a side note, I think a set of these bulls from the various Spanish mints operating during the period showcasing the different styles would make a nice series.


AUGUSTUS
L. Baebius Priscus and C. Gran. Brocchus, duoviri
AE As (27mm, 10.64g)
SPAIN, Calagurris. 27 BC - 14 AD.
RPC I 441b, ACIP 3122a
O: MVCAL IVLIA AVGVSTVS, laureate head right.
R: L BAEB PRISCO C GRAN BROC II VIR, bull standing right, head facing front.
Ex Archer M. Huntington Collection HSA 1001.1.20771 (CNG E316, 4 Dec 2013), lot 284



AUGUSTUS
AE As (28mm, 14.41g)
SPAIN, Ercavica
RPC I 459, ACIP 3186
O: AVGVSTVS DIVI F, laureate head right.
R: MVN ERCAVICA, bull standing right, head facing front.
Ex Archer M. Huntington Collection HSA 1001.1.7524 (CNG E316, 4 Dec 2013), lot 293

Z.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Both are very nice, but I prefer the detail on the reverse of the first coin. I would love to have both or either in my collection. Congratulations.

 

Very very nice! Those are excellent representatives of Imperatorial bronze.

 

I like both coins alot also. I too would welcome them to my collection. Nice grabs.

 

wow => 2 x beauty-full coins!!

Z => I certainly like your Augustus Bull just as much as my example (I'd actually love to own both, for they are two different moneyers)

L. Baggius and Mn. Flavius Festus, duoviri





=> congrats on your new additions

Happy New Year!!

 

those spanish bulls are awesome....yours are no exception zumbly.

 

Those coins are nice condition wise...but the style of the first, yuk!

(IMHO)

Sorry coin brother, no offense intended.

 

Are you looking at the same coin I am?

 

Very first one.

I actually don't know completely what my problem is with this one, it's certainly not the wear!

 

vlaha => ummm, apparently you must suffer from ooops-eye?

I hope that the New Year brings some sort of remedy for this ugly and unpopular affliction (Godspeed, my cool young coin-friend)

 

None taken. That's the great thing about this hobby - there is every flavor of coin for every preference, and you only have to buy the ones you like. Unless Steve buys them first, of course.

 

Well, IMHO, both coins are very nice, but unless my eyes have gone bad, the first coin is excellent.

 

Definitely nice coins. I wouldn't mind owning one of those in the future, perhaps.

I've noticed coins during this era have different engraving styles between moneyers. Especially so with the Augustus moneyer series as. So, it's possible that some engraving styles look odd and perhaps even difficult to detect fakes in some instances.

Here is a list of moneyers for anyone that is interested.

http://www.mimala.nl/micoi/-05th/otherz/db-rm-cn-moneyers.html

 

Thanks! I think Vlaha was just stating a stylistic preference. Might make for an interesting thread... mint styles that make us go "yuk!"

 

Thanks for posting the link. It looks like a list of moneyers for the Rome mint? I do wonder how much input the provincial moneyers or magistrates in charge of minting had on the style of the coins.

 

A coin's numismatic interest has nothing to do with its eye-appeal. Rather than say, "Yuk" it would be more intelligent to ask, "Why do these coins look so different in style from others?"

Roman minting became gradually decentralized in the first century BC, and with that decentralization came a plethora of styles which we don't necessarily recognize as being related to the Imperial style that would evolve in the first century AD. Augustus opened and/or reopened mints at Emerita, Lugdunum, Ephesus and Pergamum, and in Spain and Greece. This decentralization would become a permanent feature of the empire, and a wide variety of styles would always be prevalent.

A collection of the colonial coinage of Augustus would be very interesting precisely because the styles differ so dramatically.

 

Agreed

 

Couldn't agree more with your point on the numismatic interest of coins.

I'd still have a passing interest if someone could articulate intelligently why they found the style of a coin aesthetically pleasing or aesthetically yuk. Apart from collectors who are students of numismatics in the strictest sense and to the exclusion of all else, I'm sure many collectors consciously or unconsciously factor in eye appeal. Afterall, other than being little pieces of history, these coins are really also little works of art. Some of them at any rate.

 

Speaking only for myself, eye-appeal equates to recognizability of devices. The only coins that would make me say "yuk" are culls, harshly cleaned pieces, and the mountain of spurious trash you see on eBay any given day: gold-plated LRB's, copies, modern counterfeits, etc.

But I realize that I'm at the extreme end of the spectrum. I'm supremely interested in the numismatic significance of a coin, and not the least bit in the aesthetic. No aesthetically-minded collector would bother with Nabataeans or Judaeans.

 

Speaking only for myself, the pleasing coin catches my eye. Sure, there are coins I am looking to find for one reason or another, but a quality, good looking coin will grab my attention, and I'm more likely to make an offer or a bid. I suppose that is why I have no desire for Nabataeans or Judaeans.