Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;zumbly, post: 2473550, member: 57495&quot;]This one arrived today and checks off a major box for me. It&#039;s a fascinating RR type I&#039;ve been wanting a decent example of, and one with a well-centered reverse and otherwise wholesome attributes was not the easiest to find. I&#039;m pretty pleased with this one <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />. </p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]520857[/ATTACH]</p><p><b>IMPERATORIAL ROME</b></p><p>AR Denarius. 4.03g, 18mm. Rome mint, 47 BC, L. Plautius Plancus, moneyer. Crawford 453/1c; CRI 29a; Sydenham 959b. O: L.PLAVTIVS, facing mask of Medusa with disheveled hair. R: Aurora flying right, holding a palm branch and conducting the four horses of the Sun; PLANCVS below. </p><p><br /></p><p><b>NOTES</b>: Rather than try to rephrase what has already been said well elsewhere, I&#039;ll just take the lazy way out by cutting and pasting below. I hope the authors don&#039;t mind. </p><p><br /></p><p>From CNG auction notes:</p><p>&quot;Lucius Plautius Plancus was the brother of Lucius Munatius Plancus, although adopted into the Plautia family. This was a common occurrence when a noble Roman family was lacking suitable male heirs. The reverse type, remarkably, can be tied to a specific ancient work of art, a painting by the 4th century BC artist Nikomachos of Thebes, apparently in the possession of the Munatii and possibly the personal property of Plautius Plancus. Plautius Plancus was proscribed and executed in 43 BC, and it is recorded that Munatius dedicated the painting to the Capitol at his Gallic Triumph of the same year. This leaves open the question of the nature of the relationship between the two brothers. Did Munatius inherit the property of his disgraced brother and make the dedication in expiation, or did he have a hand in his death and seizure of his property? Munatius Plancus was later consul in 42 BC according to the arrangement made by Caesar and then followed Antony to Asia, but deserted him in 32 shortly before the outbreak of civil war with Octavian. Plancus resided in Rome for the rest of his life, and it was on his proposal that Octavian received the title Augustus in 27 BC.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>From an <a href="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/voc2.html" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/voc2.html" rel="nofollow">illuminating page</a> written by [USER=19463]@dougsmit[/USER] on <a href="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/voc.html" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/voc.html" rel="nofollow">The Vocabulary of Classical Numismatics</a>:</p><p>&quot;Traditional scholarship links this face to masks of Medusa worn by performers on stage. As the story goes, in 312 BC, the famous ancestor (Gaius Plautius) was responsible for returning Rome&#039;s troop of professional entertainers to the city after they had been driven off by his fellow Censor. This was accomplished by bringing the players into town wearing masks so they would not be recognized. The people, happy with the return of their entertainment (remember there was no TV, movies or internet), heaped raise on the man responsible for the restoration. Since the return was at dawn, traditional scholarship identified the reverse figure with Aurora leading the four horses of the sun. Another view recognises that yet another ancestor, Lucius Munatius Plancus, had dedicated a popular painting in the Capitol by the 4th century BC artist Nichomachus. This is identified as Victory leading a quadriga (chariot with 4 horses). Which is the true story? I accept the Medusa as related to the traditional story but prefer the painting explanation for two reasons. The name of the moneyer is split on the two sides of the coin. Plautius, which he shares with the hero who returned the players, appears with Medusa. Plancus, shared with the painting provider, is on the reverse with the scene from the painting. Secondly, it is not uncommon for a moneyer with more than one famous ancestor to split the honors on the two sides of a coin. In this case, our moneyer would enjoy greater personal honor by pointing out both of the famous men in his lineage.&quot;[/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