I don't think that's who you think it is: Coins that look nothing like who they're supposed to

I've picked up a few coins for their unique artistry lately showing some of our favorite emperors unlike how we are used to seeing them and thought it would be fun to share them and see some of yours.
First off is this, what I assume is either a very early portrait of Vespasian looking much more like his predecessor, Galba meets the Frankenstein Monster or just a die cutter taking some extreme artistic liberties:

VESPASIAN
Denarius. Minted AD 69-70 . ASIA MINOR. Anv.: IMP. CAES. VESPAS. AVG. Laureate head to the right. Rev .: AVG within laurel. 3.42 grs. Dark patina. Nice piece. EBC / Vespasianus. Nice coin with dark patina and extremely fine. C-36b; RIC-311; BMC-497. Purchased from Soler y Llach Oct 2021


Then I have my rather different take on Trajan. Though it is an imitative fouree, Trajan looks more like a grumpy old man who is likely to yell at you to get off his lawn then one of the baddest militaristic leaders of all time.


Trajan, 98-117. Denarius (Subaeratus, 18 mm, 2.94 g, 6 h), a contemporary plated imitation, after 113. IMP TRAIANO AVG GER DAC P M TR P COS VI P P Laureate, draped and cuirassed bust of Trajan to right, seen from behind. Rev. S•P•Q•R•OPTIMO PRINCIPI Trajan's Column: column surmounted by statue of Trajan standing left, holding patera and scepter, and set on podium decorated with eagles. BMC 452. Cohen 558. RIC 292. Woytek 425v. Nicely toned. Minor breaks in plating, otherwise, very fine.
Purchased from Leu Numismatiks Aug 2021

Not sure how anyone could think this creepy big headed boy could look like Caracalla...unless they got to know him that is:

Caracalla ? (198-217). Mesopotamia, Edessa. Æ (17mm, 3.80g, 6h). Laureate head r. R/ Turreted head of Tyche l. Cf. SNG Copenhagen 205. Brown patina. Purchased from Dara October 2021

And lastly, my latest Gallienus doesn't appear to have a single hair on his neck nor mullet. I don't know who this imposter is but doubt he'd have the chutzpah to let his dad get carried off to be made into a human footstool!


GALLIENUS
253-268 AD. Antoninianus (20mm, 3.42 g, 6h). Antioch mint, 5th emission, circa 257-260 AD. IMP GALLIENVS AVG, radiate and cuirassed bust right, seen from front / VICTORIA GE-RMAN, Victory advancing right, holding palm, presenting wreath to Gallienus, who stands left, holding globe and spear. Cf. RIC V 452; MIR 36, 1603b; RSC 1173 var. (spear not sceptre)

(Now THAT is a neckbeard!)




So please share your coins that don't look like who they are supposed to or make them look really funny!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Oooh, this is a topic I can sink my teeth into! But first, let me express my admiration for that Vespasian... fabulous coin!!! Luscious toning and a wonderfully unusual portrait.

This unusual portrait of Hadrian attracted me to the coin, though I'm not sure my fellow CTers share my view that it's very different (and lovely)...

I call your attention to the nose, lips, face shape, and beard style. All subtle things, but they add up to a unique depiction IMO.

I also have a funny one (die break)...


Probably it's only because I stare at Sev Alex portraits so much, but this coin struck me as pretty hilarious due to the very unusual moustache-but-no-beard portrait of him:


It was the huge-eyed baby face Constantine that sold me on this coin:


Provincials are probably cheating a bit, but since you showed one I can too! This sleep-deprived Gallienus struck my fancy recently, although Tyche's insane stare is even better:


(Surely Bosporan kingdom coins are cheating. Is this Constantine or Licinius on the reverse?

)

Imitatives are also cheating. But since I've cheated so much anyway, and @Ryro is a tolerant guy, here's a bemused cartoonish Tiberius from India which I love:


Here's Gordian III and Diana after a bender together:


But it's the Taman Goths who reign supreme. I present to you, on the obverse, Septimius Severus:

 

LOL all of the coins posted are great!

 

Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you ....







... CALIGULA!!

 

@Ryro Your Vespasian is really impressive! What a fabulous portrait!

I think this Augustus fits the thread, he doesn't look at all like Augustus, maybe Trajan didn't want to present a nice portrait of Augustus:

Phoenicia, Berytus, struck under Trajan ca. 99 - 102 AD. RPC suggests that this issue is from about 100 AD.

23 mm, 12.780 g
BMC 62ff; RPC III, 3833; Rouvier 500

Ob.: (DIVOS)•AVGVSTVS Bare head of Augustus, r.
Rev.: COL•IVL in two lines upper field, on r. (AVG])•FEL inverted BER. Founder, veiled and togate, plowing to r. with two oxen

​

 

I give you...

...the 'Helmeted Beard of Tarsos'!


For some reason, the face under the helmet was erased from the die but the beard was left untouched, leading to this comical reverse. (I suspect the face was removed because it was considered too small, too skinny, and unwarrior-like. If you magnify the photo several times you can just make out the vague outlines of a very receded nose under the scratchings. It doesn't explain why the die wasn't re-engraved. A lazy day at the mint...?).
The reverse, as intended (pic CNG).

Either that, or it's evidence of the cult of the Helmeted Beard of Tarsos.
Do you think it's feasible? I mean, if Baaltars could do it, why not a beard?

 

Great coin @Ryro! I do like the Vespasian portraits from Ephesus....here he is with what appears to be a close relative on the reverse...

Vespasian (AD 69-79), AR denarius, Ephesus, July-December 69, die axis 6 o'clock
Obv: IMP CAES VESPAS AVG, laureate head of Vespasian right
Rev: PACI ORB — TERR AVG, turreted and draped female bust right, no mintmark below
Size: 15-18mm, 2.86g
Ref: RIC 1397 (or maybe 1407 if there is a symbol there)
Note: Seeing 2 die matches (this double die match and this obverse die match) I am fairly confident that there is "no mint mark" on this coin.

more on this coin: https://www.sullacoins.com/post/coins-of-vespasian-from-ephesus

 

Very interesting! However, if the die were "erased", the area where the face was would be raised on the resulting struck coin. So... the plot thickens. Could the face have been removed after the coin was struck and if so, why?

Damnatio of Ares? (kidding)

 

(continuing the thought) Maybe the die was incompletely engraved when your coin was struck. Maybe the engraver just hadn't yet rendered the face.

Yeah... I like that possibility .

Makes me want to look for every example of the coin hoping to find a reverse die match, hopefully one with a face!

Edited to add: I looked up the reference you cited, @Ignoramus Maximus, and now I'm even more perplexed. It does appear to be a reverse die match (didn't check-- PSE not working on my new computer) but not an obverse match. Maybe no one noticed the face wasn't engraved or was only very shallowly engraved and the reverse die was put into use without ever being finished? Might still be interesting to look at all known examples of that reverse die to see if you can see more of a face in any of them.

 

Hi @TIF

Good point about the relief.
I'm quite sure that there was a face at some point, though. I can just about make out a (receded) nose, but it's noticeably clearer on another example in the same auction (and which looks like a die match).

Detail of the other coin. (not mine).
You can just about make out the nose here, it's like mine. Also, if the face was never engraved, you wouldn't see the rough, uneven surfaces that both have where the face should have been. Based on the receded placement of the nose I speculated that the portrait was rejected and erased, probably because it wasn't 'butch' enough for a warrior/ Ares type. Or any other reason.

Another thing that strikes me as off: the face was removed meticulously, leaving the rim of the helmet intact and without scratch-marks on the helmet. Yet, the same hand that moved so carefully on the left had no problem in carelessly wiping out the legend to the right of it...( the centering on both coins is good enough to have shown the legend). The more I look at it, the less sense it makes...

I assumed the work was done in the die. If it isn't (you make a good point about relief), then I'm stumped. Removing a face by hand from X coins is a lot of work, even for a slave...

I did even (for a short moment) consider a damnatio of some sort, but that is next to impossible: wrong face, wrong time, no other examples in the record. Datames did revolt against Artaxerxes II, but that was not until 10 years after this coin was struck.

 

Perhaps the most amazing thing to me is that at some point, someone engraved these and said, "Perfect! That's exactly what he looks like!"

 

Here are three Licinii, all of which look so different from each other they could well be different people altogether.

I call this one Fish-inius



This is a remarkably naturalistic rendering.


And this one represents the guy with a smaller head and longer neck than expected.



Another naturalistic rendering, this time of Gallienus.


Last one for now. The portrait looks very much more like Tacitus.

 

Very interesting topic indeed. I've been wondering how and why the transition happened between realistic depictions of emperors up until the mid third century and the -all emperors look the same- of the late third century and beyond. Why? Did it just become a low priority amongst all the chaos? Was it to try and relay a message of stability? Did it happen gradually or was there some defining event? Anyone know where I can read about this?

 

Here we have Elagabalus and Elagabalus looking nothing alike
And then Aurelian and Probus looking pretty much the same. What the?

 

An excellent idea for a thread.

Julius Caesar is described in the ancient sources as having a scrawny neck, and this is often shown on his portrait coins, such as this posthumous one


Julius Caesar AR Denarius. L. Livineius Regulus, moneyer. Rome, 42 BC.
Wreathed head to right; laurel branch behind, winged caduceus before
/ Bull charging to right; L•LIVINEIVS above, REGVLVS below.

Crawford 494/24;Sear HRCI 115

Ex Conte Alessandro Magnaguti Collection, P. & P. Santamaria, 14 October 1948, lot 330.


However, on one issue, which Sear in HRCI dates as the first after
his assassination, the portrayal of the neck makes this portrait almost a caricature. He appears to believe it was done in great haste

This coin was once part of Andrew McCabe's collection and I hope he won't mind my appending his note on it , proposing different dating to Sear and Crawford.




Julius Caesar AR Denarius. Rome, January-February 44 BC. M. Mettius, moneyer.

IMPER upwards to left, CAESAR downwards to right; wreathed head of Caesar right; lituus and simpulum behind

M•METTIVS, Venus Victrix standing to left, holding Victory in outstretched right hand and transverse sceptre in left, resting her left elbow on shield set on celestial globe; D to left.

Crawford 480/17

From the Andrew McCabe Collection, collector's ticket included;
Privately purchased from Münzhandlung Ritter, 2006.

"Ted Buttrey in 'Caesar at Play: Some Preparations for the Parthian Campaign, 44 BCE', 2015, makes a convincing case that all the Caesar portrait types in RRC 480 excepting the one accidental mule, an error coin wrongly classified as RRC 480/20, were struck prior to his death in March and to fund his Parthian campaign. Bernhard Woytek makes similar arguments in Arma et Nummi. I have always thought the sequential order proposed by Alföldi and adopted unchanged by Crawford, didn't allow for the evidently parallel workshops shown by the very different styles and flans of each type. I have long been convinced that all of RRC 480/1 through RRC 480/19 plus the fractions were struck in the first two and a half months of the year. Certainly the number of dies - less than 200 - makes that a physically easy task. I discussed this with Buttrey and Woytek (on a Saturday afternoon in Cambridge three years ago) who are totally supportive, and I hope to follow with an alternative study to the Alföldi/Crawford arrangement in time. First I have to work on bronzes for a while though. Anyway, this Mettius denarius was certainly struck during Julius Caesar's lifetime. It has a particularly fine reverse strike for an issue notable for less than fine strikes." - Andrew McCabe.

 

The decreasing quality of the artistry in late 3rd century is one of the reasons I prefer 1st and 2nd century imperial coins as usually the portraits are distinctive.
On a side note, I am not a Star Wars fan, but I was still able to recognize Darth Vader on this Mesembria coin

 

Wow! That is a sweet denarius @Ryro!

Unusual portraits are common with provincials.

Here is a Pius that looks like Hadrian.

Bithynia, Tium. Antoninus Pius AE18. Zeus Syrgastes
Obv: ANTONINO Y KAICAPOC (retrograde) / Pius bust r.
Rev: ZEUS TIANWN / Zeus Syrgastes standing, l., holding patera and long scepter.
18mm, 3.4gm.
Rec Gen 38, var.



Achaea. Messinia, Mothone. Geta as Caesar
Obv: Bare-headed, draped, and cuirassed bust right.
Rev: Athena standing left, holding phiale and scepter.
AD 198-209. Æ22 Assarion.
BCD Peloponnesos 813.



Achaea. Messinia, Pylos. Caracalla AE22. Terminal figure.
Peloponnesus. Pylos, Messenia. Caracalla. AD 198-217. Æ Assarion 22mm.
Obv: Laureate, draped, and cuirassed bust right.
Rev: PYL[IWN] Terminal figure veiled and closely draped, holds in r. end of garment.



Arabia Petraea, Petra. Septimius Severus AE22
Obv: Laureate bust right.
Rev: Tyche seated l., on rock outcropping, extending hand and holding trophy.

 

I wrote an article on these Taman imitations, which was published in the old Celator journal. Anyway, my most important conclusion was that whoever made these imitations, it was not the Goths. Russian and Ukrainian numismatists correctly refer to these coins as "coins of the unknown people", but my article did nothing to convince westerners that an attribution to the Goths is historically implausible. I guess the Goths sell better than unknown people

 

Actually, I've noted that in my files - I have the coin labeled as "Sarmatian? (or other Chernyakov culture)" and list a certain Dirk Faltin as the expert on these. I guess the quick ol' "Taman Goths" way of referring to the coins works, even if the description is inaccurate... but I shouldn't, it just perpetuates the mistake!

 

Well the coins are probably not Sarmatian (which is an ethnic designation) and I am not sure if Chernyakhov culture (which is an archaeological designation) is really correct either.
One ethnic group that Russian sources mention are the Sindi or Sind, which may be an Iranian people like the Sarmatians. Another line of arguments sees these coins as the product of Roman soldiers, who used them as some kind of money substitutes.
I don't think that the latter theory has many followers these days. In any case they are too early to be attributed to the Goths, who reached the Taman region only after these coins had been made.