Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;DonnaML, post: 4049208, member: 110350&quot;]Thanks for your very well-reasoned response, dougsmit.&nbsp; I have some additional thoughts and questions, which I will try to post tomorrow.&nbsp; I will say now, though, that I like your idea of a footnote (which could say something to the effect that the portraits of this type show a wide range of facial hair from clean-shaven through various degrees of mustache, sideburn, and beard growth), as much or more than the idea of separate catalogue numbers.&nbsp; Because just from the few photos I posted, one can see that it isn&#039;t simply a binary difference, like bareheaded vs. laureate, or draped vs. cuirassed.&nbsp; Instead, it&#039;s a continuum. There&#039;s everything from a few hairs on the chin and upper lip, or on the jaw, all the way to a mustache and sideburns joining up with a visible beard.&nbsp; Unless there were one catalogue number for completely clean-shaven portraits and a second for all degrees of facial hair -- and why draw the line there? -- it could be argued that to be completely accurate, one should have a separate catalogue number for each degree of facial hair.&nbsp; Which would be highly impractical.&nbsp; A footnote could serve just as well, and would resolve Pangerl&#039;s complaint that RIC says nothing whatsoever about beard type or facial hair for this coin -- an important factor in the development of Marcus Aurelius&#039;s image over time, and one that I would think was directed intentionally by the imperial government to show Marcus&#039;s increasing maturity.&nbsp; Perhaps it&#039;s no coincidence that this coin dates to 145-146 AD, and that Marcus married Faustina II in 145.&nbsp; (See RSC III at p. 199.)[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in