A little advice

I recently bought a agrippa as minted by Caligula. it’s pretty worn but still a great coin with history and a good price, I want to know if it’s proper to use this as a example of a Caligula since his portrait coins are very rare and expensive. I’m really a big fan of these as since they are common but still pretty big coins
(Note:sellers photos)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think you just answered your own question.

 

I guess i did. Anyways anyone feel free to post any Bing related to Augustus or Agrippa

 

I personally consider that a portrait of Agrippa. Here's mine:

 

It’s pretty funny that Neptunes on the back considering Caligula declared a “war" on him

 

They say behind every great man is a woman... Except in the case of Augustus. For him it was this man. IMHO, and most others, withoutAgrippa's amazing generalship, particularly naval, there's no Augustus. He's the reason we have month and know the name Augustus instead of Marc Antony.
I'm very proud of mine, as it is an ex @GregH! Where you been a Greg?

Agrippa
Æ As. Struck under Caligula, 37-41 AD. M AGRIPPA L F COS III, head left wearing rostral crown / S-C, Neptune standing facing, head left, naked except for cloak draped behind him & over both arms, holding small dolphin in right hand & vertical trident in left. Cohen 3.Former GregH

Oh, and to answer your question, there is nothing wrong with Agrippa being a space filler for Caligula. I did for at least a year until I found a decently beaten up/affordable AE caligs.

 

I do not consider this an example of Caligula even though it was struck during his reign.

Consider an inexpensive Caligula bronze:

 

You could get a Roman provincial (the ones from Spain have good portraits) for about what one would pay for an Agrippa in fine condition. If a portrait of Gaius Caligula is what you want consider the provincial route. Take a look at this one from the Segobriga Mint. It is from Caligula's reign, has Latin legends and its size and weight and metal content (11.7 grams, bronze) made it the equivalent of the contemporary asses from other mints. It probably circulated as the equivalent of the As and may have been called that in Spain and maybe other provinces of the Empire. If I recall correctly I think I paid about $150 for it.

 

As Bing said the Caligula Vesta As is an inexpensive way to get a portrait.

 

Agreed on the Caligula Vesta As - it took me a few months of searching on Ebay (if you have the app, you can set up alerts to come to your phone) but I found an example a bit rougher than the one Bing posted for only about $25.

Ended up selling it and buying this one that cost a lot more than $25


On the subject, here is my inexpensive Agrippa As. It is staggering the price difference between one like this, and one just a little nicer without corrosion.

 

My answer is that you get to decide. There is no blue book with holes, mint dates, mint marks & mintages like the one I used for Lincoln Cents 5 decades ago. You can make a 12 Caesar set any way you like. It is more common to make a set with portraits by metal (gold, silver or bronze) and by Roman (words in Latin) or Provential (words in Greek).
I have several coins that I consider issued under Julius Caesar, but no silver or gold with his portrait.

bronze, provential & broken



The moneyer M.N.CORDIVS.RVFVS – IIIVIR, 46 BC, issued coins to help pay the awards given to Caesar’s troops during the triumphs after he crossed the Rubicon in 49 BC and fought civil wars for control of Rome for a couple of years. Not many folks here consider these Julius Caesar coins for a 12 Caesar set, but it was the first J Caesar coin I bought.

 

Finn states well the situation. Worse, perhaps is the fact that giving ten coins of a type to ten collectors asked to place them in order of desirability/value would not produce ten identical lists. We do not all agree on matters like the relative awfulness of wear, corrosion, defective patina etc. For years I owned a Caligula/Vesta as that I found too offensive to catalog in my collection and too worthwhile to give away. After I bought a better one, I kept it because it was a less common variation. Later, it grew on my that it actually graded higher for wear than my better coin. I can not believe there is anyone who would rather have a coin like this with VF wear


than this which is worn to Fine. Compare the ear separation, hair detail and clothing on Vesta. Obviously there are many collectors who would refuse to consider either coin or who would take either one with twice the distractions but I have to wonder if both were placed in NGC slabs fairly graded (my guesses: VF 4/5, 1/5 above? - F 5/5, 3/5 below?) and sold in a slab only sale, which would bring more. Opinions vary and opinions make auctions.


For the record, I would not use an Agrippa as as my coin for Caligula. If you can't have an Imperial portrait Caligula, I would use an Imperial quadrans


or a Provincial.

 

Here's my Caligula. I think I picked this up for around $20. If you're willing to accept a specimen this beaten up, then there is no reason you can't have both coins in your collection:

Bronze As
Rome mint, A.D. 37-38
Obv: C CAESAR AVG GERMANICVS PON M TR POT
Rev: VESTA - Vesta, seated with patera and traverse spear, between S and C
RIC 38
28mm, 9.8g.

 

Agrippa


RI Agrippa AE As 28mm 11g Neptune-S-C Left


Gaius (Caligula, that little foot cover guy...)


RI Gaius Caligula AE As 37-41 CE Vesta seated S-C

 

The coin is in a rather mediocre state, but the portrait is pretty oustanding.

 

You know, I wish people had taken better care of their coins back then.

 

What makes me angry is people cleaning ancients with acid and destroying the patina.

 

What an interesting portrait on that one! It is missing the reverse inscription, otherwise I would assume that was a Flavian era restitution coin.

 

Good question! I'd say that this is completely up to you. RIC does it and generally organizes pre-tetrarchy Roman Imperial coins by the ruler in charge of the mint. Personally, I organize my coins by portrait but note it on my tags if they were struck by a different ruler than the person shown on the obverse. This humble follis showing Diocletian, for example, was struck under the usurper Domitius Domitianus:

Diocletian (struck under Domitius Domitianus), Roman Empire, AE1 ("follis"), 295–296 AD, Alexandria mint. Obv: IMP C DIOCLETIANVS P F AVG; head of Diocletian, laureate, r. Rev: GENIO POPVLI ROMANI; Genius, wearing modius, nude, chlamys draped over l. shoulder, standing l., holding patera in r. hand and holding cornucopiae in l. hand; at feet to l., eagle holding wreath in its beak; in field r., B; in exergue, ALE. 26mm, 8.96g. Ref: RIC VI Alexandria 18a.

My Agrippa was struck under Titus:

Agrippa (struck under Titus), Roman Empire, 80–81 AD, As, Rome Mint. Obv: M AGRIPPA L F COS III, head of Agrippa left wearing rostral crown. Rev: IMP T VESP AVG REST, Neptune standing left holding dolphin and trident, S C in fields. 26mm, 8.47 g. Ref: RIC II, Titus 470. Ex Ken Dorney, auction 7, lot 54.

For Caligula, I have this as (the usual type). Although often overpriced by full service dealers, these sometimes go for affordable prices at auctions. It thus pays out to wait and keep an eye open if you are in the market for one.

Caligula, Roman Empire, As, 37–38 AD, Rome mint. Obv: C CAESAR GERMANICVS PON M TR POT, bare-headed head left. Rev: VESTA, Vesta seated left holding patera and sceptre. S–C. 28 mm, 10.18 g. Ref: RIC I, 38. Ex Spartan, ex D. Pichler collection.

 

Agrippa, love the dolphine.