... I can hear a few of you saying. This should be the last nice one I post for a while. Domitian AR Denarius Rome mint, 85 AD (fifth issue) RIC 344 (R2), BMC - , RSC 186 Obv: IMP CAES DOMIT AVG GERM P M TR P V; Head of Domitian, laureate, bearded, r. Rev: IMP VIIII COS XI CENS POT P P; Minerva stg. l., with thunderbolt and spear; shield at her side (M3) An extremely rare denarius from the fifth issue of 85. Coined shortly after Domitian reduced the fineness of the denarius by 5% to the old Neronian level after having raised it in 82 to the Augustan standard. RIC cites Paris and Oxford with examples of this type. Struck on a large flan (21 mm!) in superb fine style. I recently missed out on an example Forvm had in their shop, but was pleasantly surprised when CNG offered this one at their last eAuction. Needless to say I pulled out all the stops to obtain it!
Among all the positive things you mention about that Denarius......I will simply add that it is a gorgeous coin!!! Congrats 'V' !!!!
OK...no Domitians then...I'll see your lunatic Flavian Emperor and raise you a sexy Spanish Emperor. OK, all kidding aside, that is one gorgeous coin. Domitian is high in my to-get list. I want to put together a set of at least one coin of each Emperor of the Flavian line and the 5 good Emperors that followed. So far I have only Trajan and Antoninus Pius. I'm thinking that the next one I try to get will be either Domitian or the old man himself, Vespasian.
Opinion: Of the '5 good' emperors, the hard one is Marcus Aurelius. I see too many of his coins with second rate die cutting and uninteresting reverses. As you are shopping around, keep an eye out for nicely executed Aurelius coins. I believe his young issues as Caesar are better.
Thanks for the tip dougsmit. Glad I found this forum. You guys are amazing and always full of helpful advise for an ancients newbie like me.
Nice pickup. My favorite Domitian that I own: Domitian, Roman Empire (revalued under the Ostrogothic Kingdom) AE as/42 nummi Obv: CAESAR AVG F DOMITIAN COS II, laureate head left, countermark XLII (42) in left field Rev: VICTORIA AVGVST, Victory advancing right, standing on prow, holding wreath and palm branch, S-C across fields Mint: Rome (struck 73-74 AD; revalued 498-526 AD) Ref: RIC 677 So you'll spam us with ugly ones until the next nice Domitian? That's not reassuring!
Ever since I picked up a copy of Ian Carradice's Coinage and Finances in the Reign of Domitian I've had a soft spot for his coinage. One gets the impression Domitian really cared about his coins.
We might differ on who we each think was the ugliest Roman emperor but I suspect Galba, Vitellius and Vespasian would get more votes than any other threesome. Its not that Nero and Otho were all that handsome so it becomes obvious that qualifications for emperor in that time did not include being handsome.
I completely agree with this assessment, and am still waiting for the "right" portrait of his myself. I've seen a couple truly stunning younger examples which I much prefer over the aged philosopher depiction. One could build an entire collection just on the varied portraits of emperors over time (the British Museum has several coins of Nero depicting his aging process).
Partly this is due to the hyper veristic style the Rome mint employed at the time, and also of course to genetics. We shall never really know how 'good' or 'bad' looking the emperors were in more stylised eras.
