Recently acquired from the good people at Forvm: Trajan, 103-111AD: O: laureate head right, drapery on far shoulder, IMP CAES NERVAE TRAIANO AVG GER DAC P M TR P COS V P P / R: Annona standing left holding wheat and cornucopia, modius to left, garlanded prow of ship to right, SPQR OPTIMO PRINCIPI, S-C between. A sestertius which preserves something like its original radiance has been high up on my want-list for a long time, and so I'm consequently very pleased to be the owner of the specimen up here. This bears the mythical "river patina" (rather a misnomer, as noted elsewhere) — the porous, slightly blotchy surfaces are the toll paid for the coin not having darkened much. We have, on the obverse, the optimus princeps: the portrait is finely executed, with the thick neck and slightly flat, elongated head typical of this emperor. On the reverse, an uncharacteristically pacific type, symbolical of the emperor's generosity in providing the grain-dole. We see the figure of Annona with cornucopia in one hand and ears of wheat in the other (both objects saying, essentially, the same thing); at her feet, a modius overflowing with yet more wheat, and behind her is the prow of a ship, resonant of the transport of grain from Africa to Rome. The die-cutter was presumably hung over when he placed the "S" of the S C. Not an item of any conspicuous artistic interest or historical revelation, but it is very shiny. By way of further illustration: So there we go: please feel free to post your relatively undisturbed bronzes, Trajans, or whatever else occurs. (As an aside, I've seen the ship part described, variously, as a prow and a stern: can anybody with greater knowledge of classical nautical anatomy than I weigh in?)
Nice portrait and interesting reverse details How can we distinguish "relatively undisturbed" surfaces from "stripped and slightly repatinated" (repatinated by time or by intention)? Does it matter? It doesn't bother me if a coin is purposefully repatinated as long as the process does not involve painting a thick layer of something on the coin. Here's a poxy Vespasian received in a large group lot. I suspect it was cleaned by electrolysis, leaving the surface pitted although the larger pits probably reflect an existing deeper corrosion. Vespasian, 69-79 AD sestertius, 35 mm, 25.2 gm Obv: IMP CAES VESPAS AVG PM TR P P P COS III, laureate head right Rev: PAX [AVGVSTI], S-C; Pax standing left, branch in outstretched right hand, holding cornucopia in left arm. Ref: RIC II 437
Absolutely gorgeous coin! Funny about the placement of the S-C on the reverse, as you note. Why didn't the die-engraver place the S above Annona's right hand? Here's an orichalcum coin of Trajan, though we're not actually sure what denomination these coins might be. Although radiate and of oricalcum, they are smaller than dupondii. RIC and BMCRE both label them as asses, but they are labelled as semises by Metcalf (W E Metcalf, "A note of Trajan's aes from Antioch." American Numismatic Society Museum Notes (1977) 22, 67). They may have circulated as semises or as half-dupondii/oricalcum asses. Trajan. A.D. 98-117. Roman orichalcum as (?), 8.51g, 24 mm, 6 h. Struck in Rome for circulation in Syria (?); Struck in Antioch (?) or Cyprus (?), AD 115/16. Obv: IMP CAES NER TRAIANO OPTIMO AVG GERM, radiate and draped bust right; c/m: bucranium within incuse punch. Rev: DAC PARTHICO P M TR POT XX COS VI P P around laurel wreath enclosing large SC. Refs: RIC 647; BMCRE 1094; Cohen 123; RCV 3243; Woytek 937v; McAlee 509; Strack 479; BN 953-5. For c/m: Pangerl 63; Howgego 294. And here's a sestertius with an Annona reverse (Antoninus Pius), which is very similar to yours, but Annona's cornucopiae is twisted around 180°: Antoninus Pius, AD 138-161. Roman orichalcum sestertius, 23.16 g, 29 mm. Rome, AD 142. Obv: ANTONINVS AVG PIVS P P TR P COS III, laureate head right. Rev: ANNONA AVG S C, Annona standing right, between modius and prow, holding corn ears and out-turned cornucopiae. Refs: RIC 597; BMCRE 1228; Cohen 37; RCV 4147; UCR 502.
Nice coin @Trebellianus , I am not completely sure what a river patina is, or how the lustre of the Orichalcum shines through for 2000 years, but it sure shows what it looked so many years ago! Here is a Trajan As that I like because of its cool patina... RI AE As Trajan CE 98-117 26mm 11.0g Rome Laureate Draped - SENATVS POPVLVS QVE ROMANVS Victory R wreath palm S-C RIC 675
In keeping with the opening thread and also along the lines of what TIF questioned above re: undisturbed -vs- disturbed, I thought of this Byzzie I bought 7 years ago. (It's a Justin II & Sophia, large follis, SB_360, 566/7AD.) In communicating with the highly reputable dealer who listed it, he wrote the below paragraph regarding the coin's "patina" or lack thereof. Note especially the portion which I made bold and underlined, as I very much share the same sentiments. "There is no patina on this coin other than a very thin red toning in the recessed areas of the obverse and reverse, and some rather thick patina in the edge cracks. I don’t know of a natural process that would result in no patina on the surfaces and thick patina in the cracks (although that’s not saying that I know that there AREN’T any such processes). My best guess is that this coin was stripped of its patina, and the red toning is artificial (though quite pretty). I just think the coin is interesting because there is almost no corrosion damage, it is well and evenly struck, and it has less wear than is usually found, so it looks a lot like such a coin must have looked while actually in circulation in ancient times. Something like the thin red toning in the recesses on the obverse and reverse also probably would have been present on a coin in active circulation."
My brassy Trajan dupondius. Looks like the obv was cleaned a long time ago but they left the reverse alone. Trajan AE Dupondius 11.26g 26mm NERVAE TRAIANO AVG GER DAC P M TR P COS V P P, Radiate Head right/ SPQR OPTIMO PRINCIPI S C, Roma standing left holding victory and spear RIC 484
Nice coin @Trebellianus ! So far I don't have any unpatinated bronzes except for this Severus Alexander sestertius which has retained some of its original color. One wonders how such a coin could survive with so little wear and patination over the past 1900 years, but it's great that your coin looks so much like it would have in hand back in ancient times. There is a bit of yellow corrosion on both sides of the coin so I don't know if it was more extensive and has been cleaned in modern times. Anyway, I like it.
I'm not sure which of these FECVNDITAS AVGVSTAE sestertii of Julia Mamaea is more (un)attractive -- the brassy one that's been zealously cleaned or the thickly-patinated one with obscured details.
Well put — if this coin, as dug up, was naturally patinated in the usual way, and at some later point was stripped judiciously and set aside for a while (which is probably what we're looking at here), then in one sense "undisturbed" is hardly the word for it. I'm satisfied with the surfaces, at any rate: the porosity / pitting is evident, but overall the coin calls to mind its original appearance rather than any modern steps taken to get it to look like that.
Interesting examples of patina (or not). I recently obtained a sestertius of Antoninus Pius that had been painted blue - initially making me think it was an exotic patina. The blue was paint. Underneath, most of the original brown patina had been stripped away (not by me). Looking on the bright (and shiny) side, this does give a good idea of what Roman brass looked like originally. Here are before and after photos:
I'm of the opinion each collection should have an example of a minimally toned orichalcum (sestertius) and one that has 'patina'. (dupondius)
Here is a Hadrian sestertius of mine. One of my few Romans. I think the portrait has character, and I like the orichalcum. One day I’ll have it undergo a XRF, just because I think it will be interesting to see the composition.
Great coins everyone! Rather fortuitously I happen to have a counterpart of my coin in the OP with a much stronger tone: Comparing the two portraits side-by-side is interesting: both are superb from a technical perspective but, considered aesthetically, I'd have to prefer the slightly less idealised depiction on the right-hand specimen.
I have this colorfully matured sestertius of Caracalla, dating from 198. Underneath the encrustations, the color is still yellow.
