The nicest ancient I have ever seen!

Hello

I don't know. I do Art restoration, generally paintings.

Amanda

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Hello Medoraman

I didn't say that, and I agree with the basic premise that there was some coins where a primary aesthetic consideration as given to them, even in the times of Rome and Greek. But i will still propose that it is nothing like the efforts and focus of aesthetics in coinage today, where so much deliberation is done on coin design. It makes you wonder why US coins are still so drab.

To my knowledge, Praxiteles never did coins. Temples yes. Coins, never.

Amanda

 

So if one sculptur whose name happened to survive from antiquity didn't do it, its not art? IDK if Kimon or Euainetos sculpted, does that mean that Syracuse coins were superior to Syracuse sculpture? You know, Picasso and Warhol are dead, I guess that means there is no such thing as art in the world now, huh? Sorry, I just don't understand the nature of that comment.

You say that so much more work is done on aesthetics on coins today more than "even ancient Rome and Greece". Where is the proof? I would argue more work is done on technical considerations, lowering relief to make it easy to strike, optimizing metal flow to make it easier to strike, making sure the coins are stackable, etc. more than art today. The ancients didn't worry about any of this, so their artwork on the coins was uninhibited by such pedestrian concerns.

Chris

Edit: I guess my point about moderns versus ancients boils down to proof. We may SAY we are studying the art of coins a lot, but like you said they are drab. I believe today we have "art by committee" which I believe is the opposite of art. I do not think one work of art designed by a group can ever compare to the single minded design of a true artist. This is what I think the difference is, the greeks had a true artist create the dies, where today 50 people try to design a coin. We can do it if we wish, TR had true artists design our most beautiful coins in US history, but we simply don't. We spend a lot of time "designing" coins, but its not true art. It lacks soul in my opinion.

 

OK - I only put $2 on this race.

 

, sorry I am defensive of ancient cultures. We both understand the importance of the ancient artistic concepts into modern day thought, and we can respectfully disagree on the degree in which this tradition was reflected in the coinage of the period.

It was fun discussing it though, right?

 

Hello

I'm not offended. I'm just refusing to work so hard on a day off.

Amanda

 

I kinda have to disagree a little. On ancients coins, they had a specific design they had to fallow right? On the 50 state quarters, people had allot more artistic freedom. I'd have to say that's more artistic and has more soul. I've seen people say LRB look crude, compared with early imperial coins, and that the quality of the artist wasn't as good. Its just a matter of style and taste rather than "art" and "not art: IMO. Some of the new Parks quarters look amazing, if they only have a but more relief

 

Well last things first. A lot of the complaints on LRB has to due with smaller coins and the conversion to Eastern Christian beliefs in artistry. Eastern Christians at the time believe the literal representation of the emperor was not what was beautiful, it was its protrayal of his soul and his devotion to God. Its this misunderstanding that causes people to believe Byzantine coins are ugly. Its a matter of taste.

Regarding ancient being more rigid in what they had to follow, REALLY?????

1. Washington quarters had the same obverse for all, the reverses had numerous items they legally had to include.

2. LRB had myriads of busts styles on the obverse. The reverses had hundreds of variations, and at least 15 major types used.

I simply don't see how State quarters were much more diverse than LRB Randy. Yes, compared to earlier roman imperials and provincials they were boring, but not more boring than the same obverse on every single coin in a series like the state quarters were, IMHO at least.

 

I guess I completely failled to make my point. I was saying the criticising modern coins was analogous to people doing the same with LRB. "They're small flat and look weird." I like the style and don't think, nor did I say they are boring or ugly.

State quarters (the reverse) are more diverse?? no. More artistic freedom? Probably, matter of opinion.

 

I probably just missed it Randy, I apologize.

I hear what you are saying, but nto sure it is just taste. LRB's were much more mass produced than other coins, and since there was no way to reproduce dies by definition meant more die engravers were used, and probably less talented ones. Also, the empire was under stress, so that is usually not good for art. Couple that with the Christian movement I described, and smaller coins, and you have coins I believe most humans on earth would call less attractive that earlier Roman of Greek coins.

Having said that, there are still some beautiful coins made, especially in silver and gold in this period. Also, I find "barbaric" coins from this timeframe very attractive, see a lot of celtic influence which I like a lot.

 

wish my ancients looked like that and not just a glob of old black metal with a semi distinguishable face

 

I agree. Condition aside, these 4 LRB at time they were minted, may been considered as artistic, and the artists as talented or on the same level (but not style) as with this Greek coin.

 

Then some like these that may have been rushed with less care taken

 

How old is ancient?


This IMO is possibly one of the greatest looking coins of all time... of any time period.





Just a shame I don't have $25,000 to buy one.

 

The Greek ones aren't particularly artistic, as compared to say the red phase of Greek pottery, and these demonstrate one of the primary problems with ancient, as well as much of modern, coinage. They are all not particularly well done profiles.

Amanda

 

To be on the fair side, Red Figure pottery of the best style is late 6th to early 4th centuries BC which is similar to the range of the best coinage period except that some cities (particularly Athens) was slower to adapt to modern styles perhaps because it was important to keep money in the 'good old days' to keep it trusted. Art and coinage changed as the world passed into the Hellenistic period and few consider this change an improvement. For the most part, we find Greek bronze coinage a step down from the silver of the same period but I suspect we should consider it the parallel of the undecorated utilitarian pottery used by the masses while the big silver has more in common with the Red Figure ware which was produced for the elite. Guys like me in the 5th century did not own pots signed by artists but used the then current equivalent of Wal-Mart plasticware. Neither did we have a pocket full of dekadrachms. Modern production methods make it easy to make a million copies of a die and many million matching coins of whatever style we wish. The old way required deciding whether the good work was applied to the coins for the poor or the coins for the rich. Guess who won that one!

 

Hello

175 replied and 2300 plus views?

I wonder if the original posters is still subscribed and would have thought he set off such a barrage when he started.

Doug, you write very well and express yourself wonderfully, but I have nothing to respond to or to add to your observations.

Amanda

 

Hello

It is French, right?

 

The obverse legend reads Elizabeth DG (by the Grace of God) of (ANG) England, FRA (France) and HIBernia (Ireland) REGINA (Queen). She would be happy you accepted the part where she claimed France as part of her dominions but that was not the opinion of all in that day.

 

Queen Elizabeth II has a better profile