I recently won this early denarius of Trajan at the last Naumann auction. This was minted in the first year of Trajan’s reign, and in the portrait, I think he looks an awful lot like Nerva, the emperor before him. Trajan, AR Denarius. Rome, 98-99 A.D., (17mm, 3.22g), RIC 30 Obv: IMP NERVA CAES TRAIAN AVG GERM P M., Laureate head right./ Rev: TR P COS II PP., Pax seated left on throne, holding branch and caduceus. I love these “transitional” coins, and I’ve read many different theories for how some of these were made. I don’t think this was a situation where the folks at the mint just didn’t know what the new emperor looked like yet...this coin clearly has some features of Trajan. I think that the theory that applies here is that they were working on a Nerva die, but he died and Trajan took over before they finished, so they just modified the portrait to make it look like Trajan. I think that they decided that instead of throwing away their work, they could just take their Nerva portrait, give him a more reasonable nose and add in Trajan’s unfortunate Lloyd Christmas haircut, and now you’ve got the new emperor. If you look closely (not sure if it comes out well in the photo), there is an area of flatness by the bridge of the nose that could be from late alterations to Nerva’s most prominent feature in the portrait. For reference, here’s the obverse of my coin and a few later issues of Nerva (not mine) from ACS search...the resemblance looks pretty clear to me. Interested to hear your thoughts and any theories on this one. And please post any of your “transitional” coins, or any relevant Trajan or Nerva.
That's neat! Much different portrait than that used on Trajan's later issues. With his prominent brow and sloped forehead, I always thought he looked more than a little like a caveman!
Holy cow, if I didn't read the inscription on the obverse I would've guessed it was a Nerva. I'm wondering, did they just use an already made Nerva die and then put the new inscription on? Or did the artists not yet know what Trajan looked like, so they went with what they knew (Nerva)? lol. Thanks for sharing!
Excellent coin and Very compelling hypothesis. It makes perfect sense. That is a Nerva with that Trajan/Lloyd Christmas (hilarious reference btw) haircut if I've ever seen one! Also Trajan usually is shown to have a had a bizarrely long/the predatoresque top of head. Here's my 2 denariis worth for comparison: Nerva 96-98 CE Mint: Rome Denarius AR 16mm., 3,03g. IMP NERVA CAES AVG P M TR P COS III P P; Laureate head of Nerva right / SALVS PUBLICA; Salus seated left holding ears of corn. RIC 9; C 132. Trajan RIC 52 Traianus (98-117 AD). AR Denarius (19 mm, 2.94 g), Roma (Rome), 101-102 AD. Obv. IMP CAES NERVA TRAIAN AVG GERM, laureate bust right, drapery on left shoulder. Rev. P M TR P COS IIII P P, Mars walking right, carrying spear and trophy.
I do not know if this qualifies but it is an early portrait on a sestertius Sestertius of Tajan rv Pax std l. RIC 401 Woytek 58a 25.73 grms 32 mm
Here are my two for comparison. Obviously, the Trajan is from later in his reign, but still I don't see how his facial features could've changed THAT much over time. Nerva Trajan
That is an interesting coin. I really like these transitional coins as well. Here is an example of a Vespasian that looks more like Vitellius.
This is also an early Trajan denarius with a similar portrait to the OP's coin - BMC 46, RSC 595c (not in RIC): It could do with a new photo'! ATB, Aidan
Very cool addition @Shea19 . I only have examples of Nerva and Trajan that are distinctive of each emperor. One might consider this early sole rule Diocletian to be a transitional portrait that falls back on features very similar to Probus. I did a write up that discusses the portrait on this coin a few years ago. https://www.cointalk.com/threads/diocletian-two-interesting-coins-and-a-legacy-of-reform.307405/
It is interesting that some of the COS II portraits on the denarii still retain their "Nerva" like imagery but on this COS II As the features are clearly that of Trajan. Trajan Ae As 98-99 A.D. Rv Victory adv. left with shield RIC 395 var Woytek 61a 12.43 grms 17 mm
I have long believed in this theory and go one extra step. I do not believe portraits were always cut by one die engraver. I believe that an apprentice might take a die blank and gouge out the rough figure but not add details. Later, a more skilled cutter would add details and submit his work to the master who would tweak it as needed. Dies in the midst of this process when the old ruler died would be worked as needed to make a usable die. No, I can't prove it. I'm just an old guy who makes up stuff as I go on but I assure you that those experts who tell you they have all the answers frequently don't understand the question. Here is a Nerva like Trajan: This one has a bit more Trajan and a bit less Nerva. Perhaps it was made a day/week or two after the first? When were the legends added? There are coins that suggest one or the other answer but if I were running that show they would be put in after the rough cut and before the master did the final review. Guessing is fun. Some guesses have merit while others are pretty far out. I am not trying to convince you that I can teach you the truth and award you a degree based on how exactly you agree with my beliefs. In this case Shea19 would get an A from me for this observation but that does not mean that we are not both wrong. We are all still learning.
I am not so sure. If one looks at the various COS II coins shown in this thread one can see at least two, possibly 3 distinct styles working at more or less at the same time. 1. The Nerva style Denarii 2. The Sestertius RIC 401 that has the image of Trajan with angular features with very fine hair 3. The as RIC 395 which has a very beefy image of Trajan with course almost "wooley" hair. This type continues for a few years. I suspect that if the mint needed to produce a large number of coins they may hire perhaps on a contract basis other celators to assist in creating the needed coinage. I have noticed this phenomenon at other times.
Thanks Doug, I agree with you. Had not thought of the idea that a rough outline was made first and then finished off later by someone else, but I think that makes a lot of sense. I can't think of any other explanation for why the portraits would retain the features of the last emperor...if they wanted to make a portrait of the new emperor that looks only like the new emperor, they were more than skilled enough to do it. On my coin and on the ones you posted, they had to have gotten started with a portrait of Nerva. I don't know how long of a process it was to make and engrave new dies, but if it could be done in a day or two, I don't think we'd see any coins like these. I'll admit that I can't explain why we don't see any bronzes like this for Trajan, but it may be as simple as they waited a month or two into Trajan's reign before issuing new bronze coinage, but got started with issuing denarii right away. I think that it some cases, like in @Orfew 's excellent Vespasian, the new emperor took over and needed new coins to be issued immediately, so they just kept the portrait of the old emperor...I don't see any features of Vespasian at all in that coin, they may not have even known what he looked like yet, and probably didn't have enough time to find out. Very interesting topic, but I agree that all we can do is guess.
Personally, I think there is another reason for the Nerva-like portraits. Trajan was named Caesar in 97 but was not in Rome at the time (He was in Germania). So there was no possibility to make a bust of the new Caesar. When Nerva died at the end of January 98. So there was no official bust of Trajan. The Mint of Rome, however, immediately started minting new coins. But they had no example bust, This led to the engravers mainly having to use their own creativity. There is a big difference in the early portrait period, some portraits seem like a combination of Domitian and Nerva, others only resemble Nerva and others more like Trajan himself. When Trajan saw the first coins, he was probably not satisfied. Presumably then a bust was quickly made in Cologne and sent to Rome as an example for the engravers. This is evidenced by the fact that the coins took on a much clearer style after a few months. When Trajan arrived in Rome in 99, he had more time to worry about the coins, from then on we see the idealized portrait.
This proved to be a very helpful thread to me today, thus the bring-back. Working through a big lot of Roman, etc. stuff from eBay, I thought what I was sure I was the proud owner of a very cruddy Nerva as. I mean, look at that schnozz! And the long turkey-neck too. That's gotta be Nerva, right? Nope. For one thing, I believe that is a radiate crown, therefore a dupondius - it looks brassy too, although it only weighs 8.78 grams. There are no dupondii for Nerva with a seated reverse figure - which took me an hour to figure out. There are however several such issues for Trajan, during the first year of his rule. Thus the Nerva-nose, as this thread so ably postulates. This is pretty cruddy, and I haven't worked out a full attribution yet - RIC 382 Abundantia sitting on cornucopiae, I think. Thanks to @Shea19 and all who contributed. This thread was a big help. P.S. Here is one from the British Museum with the Nerva nose. collection: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_R-11858
Very cool @Marsyas Mike ! Funny to see this old thread again. Looks like you have a nice early Trajan/Nerva hybrid...I haven't seen many of these in bronze, great coin. I think your ID is right on.
Until I found your thread here, I was so confused by that portrait! Sometimes these older threads are so well-done, and so helpful to me, I figure they deserve a rerun. Like this one. Thank you for the affirmation of my attribution-theory - I wish mine were in a little better shape - a bit of legend would be nice!
