Julia Titi (daughter of Titus), AE Dupondius 79-80 AD, Rome Mint. Obv. Draped bust right with hair bundled high in front and coiled in chignon high in back, IVLIA IMP T AVG F AVGVSTA/ Rev. Vesta seated left, holding palladium in right hand and long transverse scepter in left arm, VESTA below, S C across fields. RIC II-1 [397?-]398 (Titus) (2007 ed.), old RIC II 180 (Titus) (1926 ed.), Sear RCV I 2617 (ill.), BMCRE Titus 257. 26 mm., 12.23 g., 6 h. I like her hair! According to David Sear (RCV I at p. 480), Julia Titi was born "about AD 65," so she would have been only about 14 or 15 when this coin was issued, during her father's lifetime, after she was granted the title of Augusta. (See the obverse inscription for both those facts.) She apparently lived openly as her uncle Domitian's mistress from the time he had her husband Flavius Sabinus executed circa 82, until her death circa 89 -- supposedly as a result of an abortion Domitian forced her to have, during a period of marital reconciliation with his wife Domitia, who had returned from exile. (Domitia is another empress whose portrait I would like to have.)* Regarding the question raised in my thread title, I don't have RIC II-1, issued in 2007, and am a bit unsure whether this coin is RIC II-1 398 (as the dealer identified it) or 397: the description of the two types on OCRE is virtually identical. See http://numismatics.org/ocre/results? q=julia+titi+vesta+dupondius. The reverses are described identically, as are the obverse legends; the only difference in the descriptions of the obverse portraits is that 397 is described as "Bust of Julia Titi, draped, right; hair bundled high in front and knotted in back," whereas 398 is described as "Bust of Julia Titi, draped, right; hair bundled high in front and wrapped in bun in back." Could the first description refer to the examples I've seen in which Julia's hair is knotted low in back in a short ponytail, tied at the nape of the neck, as opposed to the chignon coiled high in back on mine? Both those types are encompassed by Sear RCV I 2617 -- even though the visual difference between them is far more evident than many other differences resulting in the assignment of separate catalog numbers, as appears to be reflected with the two separate numbers BMCRE 257 (my type) vs. 256 (the low ponytail type). So this theory would make sense, except for the fact that the first examples chosen to illustrate both RIC types on OCRE show Julia with her hair tied high in a chignon, as on my coin. In fact, the only difference in the two coins appears to be that in the second, Vesta is completely naked! I do still wonder if the different hairstyles might account for the two different numbers, though, given that of the 8 examples OCRE shows of 397, four have their hair in a chignon like mine, and four have their hair tied at the nape of the neck. By contrast, all 15 examples of 398 have their hair in a chignon high in back. If anyone can clarify by letting me know what RIC II-1 actually says, I'd appreciate it. I know it's inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, but I like to be correct! *As much as I like the coin plates (many in color) in the book Women of the Caesars by Giorgio Giacosa (published in English translation in 1977 from the Italian book first published in 1960), I think the author's repeated efforts to judge the characters of various empresses by their appearances on particular coins often come across as somewhat peculiar, even for the era. Albeit impassioned. For example, this type of Julia Titi dupondius is Plate XX in the book. At page 40, he calls it "the only coin of Julia that has iconographical interest." After stating that she was only 12 or 13 when the coin was issued (a low estimate), the author states that "The passion for her thirty-year old uncle which would change her life in such a tragic way began then in her adoloscent mind. Even if among the Romans, as among all southern people, women matured rather early, the face of this coin is still the fat and insignificant countenance of a little girl. Her complicated hairstyle, the first of those fantastic and complicated hairdos adopted by Julia during her short life, does not make her look grown up." He then describes the hairstyle at great length. To be fair, he does state that Julia's coins do not do her justice, because "statues and cameos show us a beautiful and refined woman," even though the "taste of the period demanded buxom women, and in all her portraits Julia conforms." This constitutes unalloyed praise next to the author's commentary, on the next page, about an aureus showing Domitian and Domitia. He argues that "a couple as odious in appearance as this does not exist in all Roman iconography." Specifically regarding Domitia, he states that her face "is less fearsome and bestial" than Domitian's, "but just as cold and hateful." Below her hair -- which he says might be a wig -- there "appears the heavy and capricious face of a virago to whom the engraver, out of spite, has given the same features as Domitian." Thus, her face "takes on, in the eye of the observer, an equivocal unnatural element which makes one think more of a transvestite than a woman." To me, she just looks a little chubby and plain! Talk about basing broad conclusions on slender evidence. Please post your own coins of Julia Titi.