Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;IdesOfMarch01, post: 7620429, member: 39084&quot;]How is it possible to know if a coin&#039;s portrait of an emperor is realistic?</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;ve often wondered if it&#039;s even theoretically possible to know, to a reasonable certainty, what any ancient Roman Emperor looked like.&nbsp; It seems that coin portraits were based on busts/models of the emperor in most cases.&nbsp; But were the busts idealized?&nbsp; Wouldn&#039;t most emperors want to be modeled in the most flattering representation?&nbsp; More youthful?&nbsp; More robust?&nbsp; And then, wouldn&#039;t the engravers make the coin portraits even more flattering, in the hopes of preserving their jobs?</p><p><br /></p><p>I don&#039;t know if there is any reliable historical record on these matters.&nbsp; Here&#039;s an example of two busts of Claudius and five different portraits on aurei:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1311356[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1311357[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1311358[/ATTACH]</p><p>Which bust is the most realistic?&nbsp; Which coin is the most realistic?&nbsp; Are any of the coins based on the illustrated busts? </p><p><br /></p><p>Which coin portrait do you like?&nbsp; Is it because it&#039;s the most artistic, or the most realistic?</p><p><br /></p><p>My preference is #5 -- Rome 44 AD -- and I own this coin.&nbsp; But Claudius has a weak chin in the portrait (as he does in many of his coin portraits) and I tend to think it&#039;s not only the most realistic portrait but also one of the more artistic ones I&#039;ve seen on a Claudius aureus.</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;d be curious to know if there is any empirical data on topic -- if it&#039;s been studied by scholars -- and how other collectors on this site assess the realism or lack thereof of the portraits on their own coins.[/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