I finally got Lucilla!

I remember being strongly convinced by the evidence of the Egyptian aureus hoard that the coinage of Lucilla must have continued until at least late in the reign of Marcus Aurelius.

Does anybody know where the contents of this hoard are summarized? Probably by Schultz, but my copy of his article is packed away somewhere so hard to find. Szaivert note 60 refers to Regling in Blätter für Münzfreunde 1930-33, pp. 380 f.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I sold the denarius version of your sestertius at CNG 483, lot 466, it hammered for $190.00.

Lucilla Augusta, circa AD 164, Rome Mint.

 

What is the grade on that one you sold?

I paid $230 for my Lucilla and apparently mine is one of the rarer (scarce) varieties.

 

One could go to the CNG archives and look up auction 483, lot 466 ...

 

I would have but I’m not really familiar with that website and I have trouble finding things when I am not familiar with the site.

I’ve tried in the past with some of the European auction sites and I end up not being able to find what I’m looking for.

In fact I tried to find the website by Googling “CNG” and I couldn’t even find it. I just got this:




I think a lot of people forget that not everyone is familiar with all the same things that they are so what might be a simple search for one person would be difficult for someone else who doesn’t have all the same information.

 

Since I focused on her for so long, the "Vota in Wreath" is fairly common. Unlike the coin, IVNONI LVCINAE, that RC posted, which is rarer.

I even kept mine:

Lucilla (164 - 182 A.D.)
AR Denarius
O: LVCILLA AVGVSTA, draped bust right.
R: IVNONI LVCINAE Juno seated left, holding flower and infant.
3.2g
19mm
RIC M. Aurelius 770. C. 36. BMC M. Aurelius 342

Ex. Goldberg Auctions, Sept. 22, 2013, Sale 75 Lot 2706 (part of)

One of the rarest is the "Vota Outside Wreath", which eluded me/lost out on because of high bids.

Other rare reverses I kept:


Lucilla (164 - 182 A.D.)
AR Denarius
Obv: LVCILLA AVGVSTA, draped bust right.
Rev: FECVNDITAS, Fecunditas or Lucilla seated right, holding child on lap; before her, a second child standing left, reaching towards her.
Rome
2.58g
RIC III 765 (Aurelius); RSC 19

Rare

Published on Wildwinds!



Lucilla (162 - 182 A.D.)
AR Denarius
O: LVCILLAE AVG ANTONINI AVG F, Draped bust right.
R: CONCORDIA, Concordia standing facing, head left, holding patera and double cornucopiae.
Rome Mint
19mm
3.27g
RIC III 760.

Ex. Cabinet Numismatique, Genève.

Rare

 

I understand your frustration - it took me a while to get used to some of the ancient search lingo - and I still have a lot to learn.

When it comes to auctions, I just use acsearch - it is free (but you don't get the closing prices or large-format photos of the auctions; if you pay, you can get that information too). It is pretty easy to use. Here is a Lucilla-Juno search I just did:

https://www.acsearch.info/search.ht...de=1&fr=1&it=1&es=1&ot=1&currency=usd&order=0

 

Fair enough. All of those are very good points. He was not the worst misfortune to happen to Rome.

Let me rephrase:
“Caligula was one of the worst misfortunes to happen to Rome.”

He really did cause a lot of damage: He bankrupted the Roman state with his extravagant lifestyle.

Not to mention his weird nonsense like his “almost” invasion of Britain which must’ve cost a fortune. The one where his soldiers threatened to mutiny and he eventually dressed Roman soldiers up as war prisoners and parades them through Rome.

Tiberius left him a huge hoard of a whopping 625 million denarii and Caligula spent all of it in his short reign. 1 billion sesterces in the first year alone.

That caused a lot of damage to the Roman state to suddenly be broke.

 

Caligula's spending spree was certainly not helpful. However, given that two years after his death, his successor Claudius was able to finance the conquest of Britain, the expansion of the empire in the south and east, extravagant public games and a large building programme, all suggest that the damage that Caligula had caused was not very significant.

 

I recently acquired this sestertius of Lucilla. It will likely be my only coin of her, but I'm very happy with it. In addition to being a beautiful coin, it has a decent pedigree.

Lucilla (Augusta, AD 164-182/183)
Denomination: AE Sestertius

Date: AD 164-169.
Obv: LVCILLAE AVG ANTONINI AVG F, draped bust of Lucilla right, seen from front, hair in waves and coiled up in chignon at back of head.
Rev: PIETAS, Pietas, draped, standing facing, diademed and veiled head left, dropping incense from right hand into lighted altar at feet, holding box of incense in left.
Diameter: 33mm
Weight: 28.99 grams
Mint: Rome
RIC III (Marcus Aurelius) 1756.

Ex Heritage Auctions World & Ancient Coins Signature Auction #3093 (29 October 2021), lot 31139.
Ex Heritage Auctions Auction 3061 NYINC (7 January 2018), lot 29396.
Ex Numismatica Ars Classica Auctions 97 & 98 (12 December 2016), lot 336.
Ex Hess-Divo Auction 321 (25 October 2012), lot 267.
Ex Frank Sternberg (November 1975), lot 124.

 

Well done! Oh what the hell...

 

Even though I collect silver denarii I like that coin a lot!

 

To be fair Claudius was a much better Emperor and a much smarter person than he is given credit for.

Apparently Caligula only kept him around as a laughing stock and because he thought Claudius was simple minded but from what I’ve read this was likely Claudius putting on an act specifically so Caligula didn’t see him as a threat.

But when you look at the reign of Claudius he survived and ruled for a lot longer than many of Rome’s emperors. Which means he had to be pretty savvy to be able to keep both the Senate & Roman Army & Praetorian Guard all happy enough with him that they didn’t continuously plot his assassination.

I would say Claudius was at least as good of Emperor as Antoninus Pius.

But imagine how much he could’ve accomplished if he had inherited Tiberius’ fortune of 625 million denarii if he was able to do very well even without it.

 

Actually, historians regard Claudius mostly as an unsuitable and largely incompetent emperor, who depended on his women and the capabilities of some freed slaves for government. The fact that he was still able to spend vast amounts of money on conquest, building programs and direct donations to the military and the public suggest that there was still a lot of money around despite Caligula's squandering.


The passage below is from Wikipedia:

"However, some historians have shown scepticism towards the large number of sesterces quoted by Suetonius and Dio. According to Wilkinson, Caligula's use of precious metals to mint coins throughout his principate indicates that the treasury most likely never fell into bankruptcy.[52] He does point out, however, that it is difficult to ascertain whether the purported 'squandered wealth' was from the treasury alone due to the blurring of "the division between the private wealth of the emperor and his income as head of state."[52] Furthermore, Alston points out that Caligula's successor, Claudius, was able to donate 15,000 sesterces to each member of the praetorian guard in 41,[25] suggesting the Roman treasury was solvent.[53]"


Again, I think Caligula's reign was anything but a blessing, but his impact on the Roman Empire and even the reign of his immediate successor appear to be nearly negligible.

 

Not all historians agree with that.

According to historian Dr. Aaron Irvin of Murray State University:

“Claudius was far and away one of Rome’s most effective Emperors and did the most to ensure the continuation of the Roman state. Claudius might not have ever really been popular or well-liked but the one thing that cannot be said about Claudius is that he was ever incompetent.”

Think about the debasement that began with Nero and eventually ruined the economy.

Over 3 centuries the denarius went from a respectable 4.5 gram coin with 96-98% silver purity to a pathetic 3 gram coin of copper with a thin barely measurable silver wash.

Maybe it wouldn’t have been necessary if the state treasury had that all that extra money that Caligula spent. Usually debasement was done to raise revenues but if the state treasury is well stocked there is no need for debasement.

 

True, Claudius may not have been the incompetent fool as which the ancient sources portrayed him. Then again, Gaius Caligula may not have been the mad tyrant as which the ancient sources portrayed him either. Often it is hard to know the truth.
I guess the question of whether he was incompetent or not depends on the question if he deliberately put capable freedmen in charge of affairs, or whether he was just lucky that these people were around. Favouring is second wife's son Nero over his natural son Britannicus, however, turned out to be very unfortunate and probably a sign of his weakness of character.

Hm, debasement is a means to multiply nominal money if real wealth had been destroyed. Caligula did not destroy real wealth (he did but much less than other emperors), he only shifted it within the Roman Empire.

Tiberius amassed a furtune by extorting money from people whom he falsely accused of treason in order to confiscate their money. Hence, money moved from the population to the Emperor.

Caligula partly restituted this money to the families of Tiberius' victims and largely spend it on luxury goods. Hence, money moved from the Emperor to the population, i.e. to craftsmen, farmers, traders, entertainers etc.

The important thing is that real wealth was not destroyed by Caligula's spending spree. The main reason for the destruction of real wealth were military campaigns that failed to pay off. To finance such campaigns, emperors resorted to money debasement.

To find the reason for the debasement of the denarius between the 1st and the 3rd century, we have to look for emperors who waged unfavourable wars, i.e. wars that may have been victorious, but that eventually cost the empire more than they actually returned in real wealth.

 

Here is my lone Lucilla coin, a sestertius from 164-169 AD.

Lucilla (daughter of M. Aurelius) Æ Sestertius. Rome, AD 164-169. LVCILLAE AVG ANTONINI AVG F, draped bust to right / HILARITAS, Hilaritas standing to left holding long palm and cornucopia; S-C across fields. RIC III 1742 (Aurelius); C. 31; BMCRE 1147. 29.17g, 30mm, 11h.

Very Fine.

From the Vitangelo Collection.

 

Here is a similar reverse design to @robinjojo's Lucilla sestertius.

 

It is interesting to see that she has a somewhat pointed nose with this sestertius, although the obverse dies are different in portrait size.

What a tragic fate she had!

 

I think the pointed nose adds to a more determined-look portrait.

I agree Lucilla's fate is quite tragic. However, this is the price of formulating such a bold action against an emperor. She took her chance. Alternatively, she could act just like her younger sisters (I think there are 2). Stayed low profile and safe, but nearly unheard of in history.

Just my thoughts.