Here is my answer to that question: Romanus I, 920-944 Sear 1769. Obverse legend: +RWMAN BASILEVS RWM Romanus, King of the Romans Reverse legend: +RWMA/NEN ΘEW bA/SILEVS RW/MAIWN Romanus, by the grace of God, King of the Romans With Roman imperial coins the portrait is often so good that you feel you could recognize the emperor on the street. With Byzantine coins the elaborate regalia identifies the figure as the emperor, but the portraits rarely have much individuality. This one has a bit of "portrait" about it, but it is still the robes, scepter, and globus cruciger that say "Byzantine emperor"!
Excellent quality coin. I have felt that way about the Seleucid portraits, I felt like I could recognize Antiochus VII on the street. Your coin is screaming "Medieval King" if I close my eyes and think about what a medieval king should look like your coin comes to mind.
Nice coin Warren. Romanus is an emperor than many times comes nice. There was a revival after the initial onslaught of the Arabs and this coin is proof of the recovery. Theophilus, Leo and a couple of others in that era usually come in nice shape.
You're correct => not a lot of artistic-effort went into making these Byzantine dudes have "life-like" portraits, eh? Leo VI Anonymous Folles, Basil II & Constantine VIII Constantine V with Leo IV & Leo III Maurice Tiberius Justinian I
