How much did emperors personally oversee the images on their coins? I have a particular interest in the coinage of Constantine in this regard. I have been reading a lot of Constantine biography (Barnes’s CONSTANTINE AND EUSEBIUS years ago, and Michael Grant’s CTG bio; recently I read Barnes’s newer biography, as well as Paul Stephenson’s fantastic Constantine book. I’m currently reading David Potter’s bio and have Leithart’s DEFENDING CONSTANTINE all ready in the queue). Toward the end of Stephenson’s CONSTANTINE: ROMAN EMPEROR, CHRISTIAN VICTOR, he writes, "In contrast to his many public images, of Constantine's private life and views we have only rare hints, and to seek more in the sources is to submit them to a critical scrutiny they cannot bear. His letters and speeches were drafted by a changing staff over his long reign, his coins designed and struck by mint workers not always abreast of current motifs and propaganda imperatives. The major monuments and luxury objects produced in his honour were designed and crafted by a range of patrons and artists whose agendas did not always, if ever, match the emperor's own." So Stephenson cautions against assuming that Constantine personally oversaw the images associated with his reign, even though it seems natural to assume that he would take some interest, especially given the massive propaganda machine that served him. Does anyone know of a good study on the relationship between imperial iconography and the personal interest or control an emperor might have over it?