For the record, I do support the notion that a collector may determine the criteria for a “Twelve Caesars” set. I do not believe there are “rules” for that collection. With that having been said, however, I do have a couple of guidelines for my set. First, I want to collect as many coins in middle bronze (the as denomination) as possible. I know this will be difficult for Julius Caesar and Otho, but for the rest of them it can be done without too much difficulty. I also would prefer to collect official imperial issues, not provincials. Which brings me to my question. I am trying to determine whether the distinction between imperial and provincial is relevant for the coinage of Augustus. This is somewhat of a time-sensitive query because I am interested in a coin struck at an “uncertain Asian mint” in an auction that closes in a few days. If I win this coin, I’m wondering if it would not be within my self-imposed imperial coinage guidelines, or if these guidelines aren’t relevant for the coinage of Augustus. I do know that Augustus reforms coinage in about 23 BC, but I’m not sure to what extent the imperial versus provincial dichotomy was relevant to this reform. @jamesicus was kind enough to send me E.A. Sydenham’s essay on “Coinages of Augustus,” in which he identifies the following mints, which may or may not simplify the matter. Would issues from the senatorial, imperatorial, and imperial mints define non-provincial issues? I’m still trying to read up on the matter. Andrew Burnett, in “Coinage in the Roman World” says that local issues in the west ceased under Augustus at about this time. Does that mean that only coins struck at Rome would be considered official imperial issues, and any coins struck elsewhere for Augustus would be deemed provincial? Or, again, is this dichotomy not particularly relevant for Augustus? I would be grateful for any input on the query.
I dont mind to add some provincial coins to my 12 Caesar sets , as long as the legend is in Latin. I dont like mixing bronze and silver in one set. Thats why I have 2 sets Bronze (completed),and working on a budget silver set, now 8 coins. I dont mind adding a fourree , like this one: borderline: TIBERIOS KAISAR drachma
Yes; I think once I complete my full "imperial" set, I might ring some variations, like using provincial to go all bronze.
Hi Gavin, I found this little snippet in "Coinage in Roman Imperial Policy" by Sutherland. "Thus the eastern official coinages produced after the second settlement not only display the prominence of Auctoritas as the new feature of that reform, in the appearance of the S.C. type (in Syria and elsewhere) and the C.A. and AVGUSTVS types (in Asia and elsewhere), but also show the Princeps coining at his discretion without reference to legislation passed through the senate, exactly as he had done throughout the long Spanish series of gold and silver, both before and after the year 23." pp 44-45 If Augustus directly ordered these issues to be minted, does this make them imperial, or does this require the approval of the senate?
That’s a good piece of info, @Orfew. I don’t know how to answer that. Perhaps it’s merely a question of semantics. When does the imperial/provincial dichotomy become obvious and unambiguous? I don’t know.
I'm OK with a mixed set too. If you need a middle bronze/portrait/latin legend/Rome mint, why not going for a moneyer's issue ? Augustus, As Rome mint 7 BC CAESAR AVGVST PONT MAX TRBUNIC POT, Bare head of Augustus left M SALVIVS OTHO III VIR AAA FF, around SC 11.18 gr Ref : RCV # 1685 var, Cohen # 516 Q
