Hello Sir, thanks a lot for picking up this fascinating topic, and for further elaborating the quality of coinage throughout Roman history, really well done! I am happy that many seem to be interested in late Roman art, and I see, we both independently arrived at very similar conclusions. Keep making great videos and all the best !
Everyone always ignores ivories and mosaics in discussions about Roman art even though they were consistently pretty amazing all the way up to the 15th century 😤
Many people are dismissive towards the romans. Espically today. Computers and ai is not impressive. Its self delussion. What would be impressive would be terraforming mars. Not seeing anything about that yet.
@@eric.1948what would be impressive is looking after Gaia. Not filling space with more junk. Elon can't even build a truck. The man's delusional if he thinks he's terraforming Mars 😊
Egypt had a lot of cycles like this too, perhaps the most dramatic being after the First Intermediate Period. In that 150 year dark age the arts had effectively gone extinct, and once Egypt was put back together again you can tell from tomb artifacts that it took about 4 generations of rediscovering techniques and taking ques from old art pieces for quality to reachieve parity with what it had been before.
Great topic. I saw a story on the BBC over the weekend about a Roman coin that was thought to be a fake might have been a 3rd century usurper emperor. You should do a show on the rare usurper coins.
Great topic for a video here. I was excited when I heard the story, then I dug into it. Still fake sadly. The biggest tell is the other coins it was found with (after much searching of the google, I found good images of all the coins)...they are terrible fakes. An unknown coin with a lot of issues found with 3 bad gold fakes from someone who wasn't good at getting busts right. Birds, feathers and flocks! I can even paint the story of the 17th century faker. Had 4 or 5 reference coins but didn't have alot of background so he mixed and matched. I would guess he had a Gordian ANT, a Philliipus ANT, a repubilcan denarius/IMP denarius or two. Now to the "horde". The gold gordian is pretty much a copy of the Gordian ANT, the forger was good with lettering but bad with the bust style, because of the radiate crown it would be a Binio and from the images looks like aureus multipule in size, its just a very barbarous coin, real Gordian gold and silver is very well engraved. Now to the 2 Phillipus Coins. 1. both clearly struck from the same die, 2. They use a very poor engraving of the personification of Roma with winged helmet common on repubilican denarius but with a well made imperial titles (as it copied exactly of the ANT). Now to the proposed unknown usurper, IMP SPONSIAN. I think it this the the forgers poor copy of a bust of Phillipus (like his poor copy of Gordian and Roma) with a botched republican title with a republican reverse.
I wonder if they drew a distinction between coin art and other art? To us, coins are objects that have denominational value independent of their material. But back then, the value was in the chunk of metal rather than what was stamped on it, and the obverse and reverse designs were simply imperial stamps attesting that the coin contained the metal that was claimed. Most people probably paid as much attention to the designs as I do to our coins (i.e., almost none). But they were just government stamps. Whereas the statues and such were actual art, meant to be displayed. Additionally, once the coins were debased and they needed to produce gazillions of them, they probably went through dies at a very rapid pace. Making dies quickly is probably easier if you slouch on the artwork a little, or a lot, and that could explain some of the reductions in quality. They just needed to make them at really increased quantities (but still by hand, one at a time) over the earlier days, so the quality suffered. I also noticed that the Rome designs were often nicer than the designs from the peripheries. I wonder if that's because the Emperor himself was more likely to see coins struck in Rome than in, say, Antioch? Just hazarding a guess.
It reminds a bit of the late 18th century art critics snobbing the Ostrogotic and and Lombardic styilized arts from the 5th and 6th century. They just did not realize the “Goths” and Lumbards where fully in synch with the latest minimalistic and expressionist trends in the Eastern Roman empire.
Hi Leo! In my opinion, the apogee of the Roman imperial realistic portrait is in the 3rd century, from the Severan emperors to the Gallic emperors, of course with some exceptions.
I have a bull headed Constantius follis I(fully silvered) that is every bit as artistic as earlier coins. I wish I could post a pic, its amazing detail in the curls of his beard. The skill was there, the argentius/miliarense can be very artistic, they were just pumping out as many coins as possible.
Thumb's up for another splendid program. I suspect the quality of Roman coinage decreased as it became less intrinsically valuable and more of a debased and chiefly base metal "fiat" issuance, almost like tokens. By the time of Aurelianus, when the coinage was reformed and "improved" after such a long decline, even his issues featured a XXI (or its Greek numeral form KA) on them to indicate that they contained just 1/20th silver by weight (itself an over-optimistic assessment) of the old denarius. In the early days of the Empire or late Republic a single denarius might have been the daily wage of a skilled laborer or soldier. By the time of Aurelian it would have been roughly 50 of the equivalent debased "double-denarii" or "Antoniani," as we call them nowadays. Indeed the Romans had inflation just as we do now. In fact the same drop in coin quality seems to hold true for modern American coinage. Even a pre-1965 90% silver Roosevelt Dime or Washington Quarter has a fuller, rounder and more attractive relief than the flat current-day clad stuff. Even a humble pre-'69 penny has more depth and character than a modern one. It's an interesting parallel. When I was a kid in the early '60s a dime would get me an ice cold Coke in a bottle or a nickel would buy me a Hershey's Chocolate Bar the size of a small surfboard. Even a penny would buy a couple of gumballs or a selection of so-called "penny candy". Wouldn't you just _expect_ those coins to be a little "nicer?" In the Roman coin landscape I expect it may explain why there are so many silver coins of Gordian III to be had in often superb conditions for comparatively little. Compared to the coinage of subsequent emperors Gordian's were of fine silver and hence eminently "hoardable" as a hedge against inflation. Accordingly so many of them buried or otherwise secreted and lost were there to be discovered in modern times every time someone dug a new sewer line or building foundation and stumbled on another ancient hoard of "good old silver."
I actually feel that a certain amount of complacency slipped into the coinage of the late second century. Portraits of Antoninus Pius especially show a great inconsistency in quality. It seems that once the pax romana started breaking down, the technical quality of coins went up for several decades as the need to project power and a semblance of stability increased. Portraits of Maximinus, Gordian and especially Balbinus and Pupienus are generally really well done. The coinage of thexsecond century in general, starting with Septimius, has much tighter, bolder and better legible legends than the sometimes rather sloppy macaroni letters of the second century. Also, while undoubtedly more stylized, the better portraits of Aurelian and Probus and the likes still exude an aura of power and dignity and show great skill on the part of the engravers, just in a different style.
Early Roman and Greek coins reached a height in design not seen for another thousand years after the 3rd century. Some later designs such as the military bust solidi were notable but generally speaking, it seems a great art tradition had been lost.
I think it's interesting to see the difference in engraving quality between the coins of gallienus and postumus. same time period, but the coins minted under postumus are gorgeous by comparison.
I don't think anyone really is bothered by early Dominate coins, the memes and banter about dumbed down faces are mostly about late 4th and 5th century coins and onward, most usually the topic of ridicule is medieval Roman/Byzantine coins.
Constans ii and Constantine iv solidi looks a lot more realistic than that of centuries prior.Constans solidus and Justinian shows that golden age does not 100% affect coinage quality.But, Justinian’s medal also is extremely realistic too, while his solidus is a lot of different also.Another golden age of coin quality of Coinage was during the Macedonian dynasty, Leo vi & Constantine vii’s solidi of Jesus really depicts his robe and face realistically
Thats an interesting point you make there. Although there is some merit to the statement that coin art quality is directly correlated to how well a nation is doing at a certain point in time, we also see exceptions.
Even during the age of Augustus, there are wide variations in the style of his coins from West to East. The mints in Hispania produced rather idealized portraits of Augustus, w/ eyes bulging and a pointy nose, then the mint in Gaul produced portraits where the engravers were just trying to copy the marble bust used for the base model (just look at some of Augustus' denarii from Lugdunum --- his hair looks like a chain mesh hat). Yet, when we see cistophorii and tetradrachms from the Eastern mints, Augustus' portraits appear more lifelike. Despite the various styles across the empire, each die was distinct, from one engraver to another. And if one wants to see stark differences in engravers, take a look at Nero's coinage. Late into his reign, it's clear that he became a polarizing figure, w/ some of his portraits still showing a handsome, albeit husky man... and then there are Neronian portraits where his face sinks into a mass of flesh and hair, and his neck becomes a stump.
@@ashharris7293 Did the Romans have a double-denarius before the antoninianus? Because that denomination and it’s indicative diadem dates back to Caracalla in the early-200s AD. Roman coinage is kinda confusing, so I could be wrong in my understanding
Art definitely crapped the bed by the beginning of the 4th Century AD. The only exception being mosaics which remained quite beautiful for another century.
That`s an interesting topic. As art is relative and every time has it`s own art forms, there is indeed a change in art from time to time. As in ancient greece the classical period and hellenistic period differs, so the roman engravings also develope through the time. The same with architecture. I personally do not like late roman coins and prefer the ones from republic till mid of the 2nd century AD. My guess is, that many collectors do. They are more pleasant for me to look at.
The often reproduced statue seen at 13:55 supposedly representing Julian the Apostate has also been argued to be an image of an otherwise anonymous priest of Serapis. I'm not sure of the context of the competing arguments, but I do believe the dating of the sculpture to the late fourth century is secure.
Shouldn´t the Republican coins also be included? I like them a lot, they are clearly inspired by the Greek mints, and that´s why I like them I think, a kind of transitional period until the emperors entered the scene.
@@mg4361 Naw, not that extreme, just give the President's more power and abolish the Senate, there you go, you will pass more laws in a more timely manner and there is no conflict with the Senate. The house of Representatives still stand.
I actually think the gold solidus of Constantius II are the most impressive Ancient Roman coins. I find the Aureus of the earlier Empire to be far less appealing. The coinage of the early empire is dominated by silver, whereas the 4th and 5th centuries have far more base metal coins. This often means we are not comparing like for like.
I've studied art for a year in my youth. And I remember how the Roman period is often criticised for copying Greek art. As if the Roman statues are cheap knock offs etc. As we enter the late Roman Christian period these new "stylised" statues and busts are praised for fitting the new authoritarian function of the state etc. I think this is just biased snobbery by the modern art elite's. They clearly don't like imperial Rome with slavery and all off these negative attributes. And they kinda try to demean them thru criticising their art. And as their moral foundations become more alingned to our modern values their art suddenly becomes more palatable.
Indeed, Mark. I got a new microphone, so Im still fine-tuning its configuration. Thanks for the feedback, I'll make sure to boost it up a bit for next episode :)
Constantine The Great coins is probably one of the best examples to this topic, it's pretty hard to use the word "beautiful" to describe most of these coins if not all, either the portrait of Constantine I or the design of the gods, the dies were so poorly engraved. Of course from the historic point of view these coins hold a great historic importance, but artistically speaking...man they are just ugly
Apogee of Roman art Trajan?????! The apogee of Roman art in coinage began with Nero (the engravers seem to have become more obsessed with how ugly he became in later life) and was already starting to decline under Domitian, the last Flavian emperor. By the time you get to Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius you are merely looking at a new stylist form again like the one seen for Augustus.
Give it a retry, when a RUclips video is uploaded and you watch straight after it's upload sometimes the audio volumes are off (due to RUclips not the creator) . Currently the audio is fine for me.
Most dont require any sealant. Just storing them in a dry environment is enough. For the bronze pieces I use a very thin coating of a product called "Renaissance wax"
The valerian at 4:07 is incredible! An extremely strong portrait, well centered, and in high relief. Are these general features of the issue or is this a one-off example that was cut by a master engraver? Looking through Wildwinds, I thought it might be RIC 92 based on the obverse legend and longer hair style (as opposed to short hair as in the Samosata example on the right), but it's hard to tell without knowing what's on the reverse. Thanks for a great video! www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/valerian_I/RIC_0092_2.jpg
Hello Sir, thanks a lot for picking up this fascinating topic, and for further elaborating the quality of coinage throughout Roman history, really well done! I am happy that many seem to be interested in late Roman art, and I see, we both independently arrived at very similar conclusions. Keep making great videos and all the best !
Everyone always ignores ivories and mosaics in discussions about Roman art even though they were consistently pretty amazing all the way up to the 15th century 😤
Many people are dismissive towards the romans. Espically today. Computers and ai is not impressive. Its self delussion. What would be impressive would be terraforming mars. Not seeing anything about that yet.
@@eric.1948what would be impressive is looking after Gaia. Not filling space with more junk. Elon can't even build a truck. The man's delusional if he thinks he's terraforming Mars 😊
If u respond ur cool
And I’ll sub to ur channel
One of the best historical, numismatic and art short videos I have seen.
Egypt had a lot of cycles like this too, perhaps the most dramatic being after the First Intermediate Period. In that 150 year dark age the arts had effectively gone extinct, and once Egypt was put back together again you can tell from tomb artifacts that it took about 4 generations of rediscovering techniques and taking ques from old art pieces for quality to reachieve parity with what it had been before.
Great topic. I saw a story on the BBC over the weekend about a Roman coin that was thought to be a fake might have been a 3rd century usurper emperor. You should do a show on the rare usurper coins.
Great topic for a video here. I was excited when I heard the story, then I dug into it. Still fake sadly. The biggest tell is the other coins it was found with (after much searching of the google, I found good images of all the coins)...they are terrible fakes. An unknown coin with a lot of issues found with 3 bad gold fakes from someone who wasn't good at getting busts right. Birds, feathers and flocks! I can even paint the story of the 17th century faker. Had 4 or 5 reference coins but didn't have alot of background so he mixed and matched. I would guess he had a Gordian ANT, a Philliipus ANT, a repubilcan denarius/IMP denarius or two. Now to the "horde". The gold gordian is pretty much a copy of the Gordian ANT, the forger was good with lettering but bad with the bust style, because of the radiate crown it would be a Binio and from the images looks like aureus multipule in size, its just a very barbarous coin, real Gordian gold and silver is very well engraved. Now to the 2 Phillipus Coins. 1. both clearly struck from the same die, 2. They use a very poor engraving of the personification of Roma with winged helmet common on repubilican denarius but with a well made imperial titles (as it copied exactly of the ANT). Now to the proposed unknown usurper, IMP SPONSIAN. I think it this the the forgers poor copy of a bust of Phillipus (like his poor copy of Gordian and Roma) with a botched republican title with a republican reverse.
I wonder if they drew a distinction between coin art and other art? To us, coins are objects that have denominational value independent of their material. But back then, the value was in the chunk of metal rather than what was stamped on it, and the obverse and reverse designs were simply imperial stamps attesting that the coin contained the metal that was claimed. Most people probably paid as much attention to the designs as I do to our coins (i.e., almost none). But they were just government stamps. Whereas the statues and such were actual art, meant to be displayed. Additionally, once the coins were debased and they needed to produce gazillions of them, they probably went through dies at a very rapid pace. Making dies quickly is probably easier if you slouch on the artwork a little, or a lot, and that could explain some of the reductions in quality. They just needed to make them at really increased quantities (but still by hand, one at a time) over the earlier days, so the quality suffered. I also noticed that the Rome designs were often nicer than the designs from the peripheries. I wonder if that's because the Emperor himself was more likely to see coins struck in Rome than in, say, Antioch? Just hazarding a guess.
It reminds a bit of the late 18th century art critics snobbing the Ostrogotic and and Lombardic styilized arts from the 5th and 6th century. They just did not realize the “Goths” and Lumbards where fully in synch with the latest minimalistic and expressionist trends in the Eastern Roman empire.
Hi Leo! In my opinion, the apogee of the Roman imperial realistic portrait is in the 3rd century, from the Severan emperors to the Gallic emperors, of course with some exceptions.
I have a bull headed Constantius follis I(fully silvered) that is every bit as artistic as earlier coins. I wish I could post a pic, its amazing detail in the curls of his beard. The skill was there, the argentius/miliarense can be very artistic, they were just pumping out as many coins as possible.
Thumb's up for another splendid program. I suspect the quality of Roman coinage decreased as it became less intrinsically valuable and more of a debased and chiefly base metal "fiat" issuance, almost like tokens. By the time of Aurelianus, when the coinage was reformed and "improved" after such a long decline, even his issues featured a XXI (or its Greek numeral form KA) on them to indicate that they contained just 1/20th silver by weight (itself an over-optimistic assessment) of the old denarius. In the early days of the Empire or late Republic a single denarius might have been the daily wage of a skilled laborer or soldier. By the time of Aurelian it would have been roughly 50 of the equivalent debased "double-denarii" or "Antoniani," as we call them nowadays. Indeed the Romans had inflation just as we do now. In fact the same drop in coin quality seems to hold true for modern American coinage. Even a pre-1965 90% silver Roosevelt Dime or Washington Quarter has a fuller, rounder and more attractive relief than the flat current-day clad stuff. Even a humble pre-'69 penny has more depth and character than a modern one. It's an interesting parallel. When I was a kid in the early '60s a dime would get me an ice cold Coke in a bottle or a nickel would buy me a Hershey's Chocolate Bar the size of a small surfboard. Even a penny would buy a couple of gumballs or a selection of so-called "penny candy". Wouldn't you just _expect_ those coins to be a little "nicer?" In the Roman coin landscape I expect it may explain why there are so many silver coins of Gordian III to be had in often superb conditions for comparatively little. Compared to the coinage of subsequent emperors Gordian's were of fine silver and hence eminently "hoardable" as a hedge against inflation. Accordingly so many of them buried or otherwise secreted and lost were there to be discovered in modern times every time someone dug a new sewer line or building foundation and stumbled on another ancient hoard of "good old silver."
I actually feel that a certain amount of complacency slipped into the coinage of the late second century. Portraits of Antoninus Pius especially show a great inconsistency in quality. It seems that once the pax romana started breaking down, the technical quality of coins went up for several decades as the need to project power and a semblance of stability increased. Portraits of Maximinus, Gordian and especially Balbinus and Pupienus are generally really well done. The coinage of thexsecond century in general, starting with Septimius, has much tighter, bolder and better legible legends than the sometimes rather sloppy macaroni letters of the second century. Also, while undoubtedly more stylized, the better portraits of Aurelian and Probus and the likes still exude an aura of power and dignity and show great skill on the part of the engravers, just in a different style.
Early Roman and Greek coins reached a height in design not seen for another thousand years after the 3rd century. Some later designs such as the military bust solidi were notable but generally speaking, it seems a great art tradition had been lost.
I think it's interesting to see the difference in engraving quality between the coins of gallienus and postumus. same time period, but the coins minted under postumus are gorgeous by comparison.
Postumus seemed to make some effort, though as time went on they got worse it seems.
Excelent video as always!
I actually follow Maiorianus and his videos are great. I love to see creators doing more than just arguing.
Interesting! I always saw the late style coinage just as intricate as earlier periods. It's just as simple as a different style.
I don't think anyone really is bothered by early Dominate coins,
the memes and banter about dumbed down faces are mostly about late 4th and 5th century coins and onward, most usually the topic of ridicule is medieval Roman/Byzantine coins.
Constans ii and Constantine iv solidi looks a lot more realistic than that of centuries prior.Constans solidus and Justinian shows that golden age does not 100% affect coinage quality.But, Justinian’s medal also is extremely realistic too, while his solidus is a lot of different also.Another golden age of coin quality of Coinage was during the Macedonian dynasty, Leo vi & Constantine vii’s solidi of Jesus really depicts his robe and face realistically
Thats an interesting point you make there. Although there is some merit to the statement that coin art quality is directly correlated to how well a nation is doing at a certain point in time, we also see exceptions.
Even during the age of Augustus, there are wide variations in the style of his coins from West to East. The mints in Hispania produced rather idealized portraits of Augustus, w/ eyes bulging and a pointy nose, then the mint in Gaul produced portraits where the engravers were just trying to copy the marble bust used for the base model (just look at some of Augustus' denarii from Lugdunum --- his hair looks like a chain mesh hat). Yet, when we see cistophorii and tetradrachms from the Eastern mints, Augustus' portraits appear more lifelike. Despite the various styles across the empire, each die was distinct, from one engraver to another.
And if one wants to see stark differences in engravers, take a look at Nero's coinage. Late into his reign, it's clear that he became a polarizing figure, w/ some of his portraits still showing a handsome, albeit husky man... and then there are Neronian portraits where his face sinks into a mass of flesh and hair, and his neck becomes a stump.
Absolutely, I have one denarius of Nero right when he became emperor and one from his last year. Fat Nero all the way!
I'd take "degenerate" late roman coins over the modern ones any day haha
My first really good Denarius depicted a young Caracalla, and to this day it's still my favorite roman coin.
Nice! I also have one of his first reign as co-emperor with his father. He looks like a kid in emperor's costume
Thanks leo 👍😊 top video.
11:15 Glad the art was saved though. So much was lost to the Islamic invaders
Did the radiate crown ever actually exist or was it just a symbol on coins?
I believe it was only an indication on coins to indicated double value of the denomination. It was a crescent moon for women.
If I remember correctly, yes. I remember reading about a story of Gallienus wearing one
@@Kyle_Schaff He may have but the radiate to indicate double value on the coin dates back to at least Nero.
@@ashharris7293
Did the Romans have a double-denarius before the antoninianus? Because that denomination and it’s indicative diadem dates back to Caracalla in the early-200s AD. Roman coinage is kinda confusing, so I could be wrong in my understanding
@@Kyle_Schaff Used on the dupondis as far back as Nero, so 150 years of use for double.
Art definitely crapped the bed by the beginning of the 4th Century AD. The only exception being mosaics which remained quite beautiful for another century.
Agreed.
That`s an interesting topic. As art is relative and every time has it`s own art forms, there is indeed a change in art from time to time. As in ancient greece the classical period and hellenistic period differs, so the roman engravings also develope through the time. The same with architecture.
I personally do not like late roman coins and prefer the ones from republic till mid of the 2nd century AD. My guess is, that many collectors do. They are more pleasant for me to look at.
"Decline" is a word little used by scholars today. It assumes that one style is inherently better than other styles.
Precisely. Styles and tastes change, but one historical idiom is not intrinsically superior to another.
I feel the art declined a bit in the 5th century but picked back up under Byzantium
Great video! I enjoyed it a lot. You think the coins of julian the apostate are more realistic than the other ones of their time?
The often reproduced statue seen at 13:55 supposedly representing Julian the Apostate has also been argued to be an image of an otherwise anonymous priest of Serapis. I'm not sure of the context of the competing arguments, but I do believe the dating of the sculpture to the late fourth century is secure.
Shouldn´t the Republican coins also be included? I like them a lot, they are clearly inspired by the Greek mints, and that´s why I like them I think, a kind of transitional period until the emperors entered the scene.
Art is definitely declining in our current empire
If you're talking about the US, the US is still a Republic..... And a failing one at that. We need to abolish the useless Senate!
US circulating coin design definitely fell from the high relief coins of the early 20th century.
@@BopWalk And replace it with an autocratic dynasty?
@@mg4361
Naw, not that extreme, just give the President's more power and abolish the Senate, there you go, you will pass more laws in a more timely manner and there is no conflict with the Senate. The house of Representatives still stand.
@@hridgreximp6194 2021 quarters has such a fine artistry
👍👍👍👍👍
I actually think the gold solidus of Constantius II are the most impressive Ancient Roman coins. I find the Aureus of the earlier Empire to be far less appealing. The coinage of the early empire is dominated by silver, whereas the 4th and 5th centuries have far more base metal coins. This often means we are not comparing like for like.
To each their own I suppose
I've studied art for a year in my youth. And I remember how the Roman period is often criticised for copying Greek art. As if the Roman statues are cheap knock offs etc. As we enter the late Roman Christian period these new "stylised" statues and busts are praised for fitting the new authoritarian function of the state etc.
I think this is just biased snobbery by the modern art elite's. They clearly don't like imperial Rome with slavery and all off these negative attributes. And they kinda try to demean them thru criticising their art. And as their moral foundations become more alingned to our modern values their art suddenly becomes more palatable.
This seems to be quieter than your other videos.
Indeed, Mark. I got a new microphone, so Im still fine-tuning its configuration.
Thanks for the feedback, I'll make sure to boost it up a bit for next episode :)
Constantine The Great coins is probably one of the best examples to this topic, it's pretty hard to use the word "beautiful" to describe most of these coins if not all, either the portrait of Constantine I or the design of the gods, the dies were so poorly engraved. Of course from the historic point of view these coins hold a great historic importance, but artistically speaking...man they are just ugly
First!
Excellent presentation. What kind of preservative coating do you use on your bronze coins?
In some of my bronze coins, particularly those with frail patinas, I use Renaissance Wax
Or did the emperors just become fat, shapeless and lumpy due to lead poisoning?
After Christianity.. the fourth century with some exceptions. But coins and busts and sculptures turned to garbage.
Apogee of Roman art Trajan?????! The apogee of Roman art in coinage began with Nero (the engravers seem to have become more obsessed with how ugly he became in later life) and was already starting to decline under Domitian, the last Flavian emperor. By the time you get to Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius you are merely looking at a new stylist form again like the one seen for Augustus.
Sorry I can’t continue watching because the volume is too low even at maximum output. You should speak louder or get closer to your microphone.
Give it a retry, when a RUclips video is uploaded and you watch straight after it's upload sometimes the audio volumes are off (due to RUclips not the creator) . Currently the audio is fine for me.
It's fine for me too, even with my somewhat lower volume Bluetooth earbuds. As already suggested, give it another try.
Audio is totally normal for me
Are you deaf?
You are awesome!
Excellent video as always. What product do you use as a sealant on your beautiful coins?
Most dont require any sealant. Just storing them in a dry environment is enough. For the bronze pieces I use a very thin coating of a product called "Renaissance wax"
@@ClassicalNumismatics Thank you. Do you buff them after using the Ren wax?
I don't think the empire was slowly declining from the second century in opinion the empire fall because of military crisis in the fifth century
The valerian at 4:07 is incredible! An extremely strong portrait, well centered, and in high relief. Are these general features of the issue or is this a one-off example that was cut by a master engraver? Looking through Wildwinds, I thought it might be RIC 92 based on the obverse legend and longer hair style (as opposed to short hair as in the Samosata example on the right), but it's hard to tell without knowing what's on the reverse. Thanks for a great video!
www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/valerian_I/RIC_0092_2.jpg