Catalog
Why register? Just to keep bots out of our catalog. Your email stays private - we will never share it or send you anything uninvited. We guarantee you that!
| Issuer | Roman Empire (27 BC - 395 AD) |
|---|---|
| Year | 11 BC - 10 BC |
| Type | Log in to see details |
| Value | 1 Aureus = 25 Denarii |
| Currency | Log in to see details |
| Composition | Log in to see details |
| Weight | Log in to see details |
| Diameter | Log in to see details |
| Thickness | Log in to see details |
| Shape | Log in to see details |
| Technique | Log in to see details |
| Orientation | Log in to see details |
| Engraver(s) | Log in to see details |
| In circulation to | Log in to see details |
| Reference(s) | Log in to see details |
| Obverse description | Bare head of Augustus facing left, rendered in fine Classical style with naturalistic portraiture characteristic of Augustan court art. The emperor's hair is depicted with carefully articulated locks swept forward across the brow, consistent with his canonical numismatic image. The truncation of the neck is plain and unadorned. The encircling legend is distributed across the field in large Latin capitals. No border of dots is visible on this hammered flan. |
|---|---|
| Obverse script | Log in to see details |
| Obverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Reverse description | Log in to see details |
| Reverse script | Log in to see details |
| Reverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Edge | Log in to see details |
| Mint | Log in to see details |
| Mintage | ND (11 BC - 10 BC) |
| Additional information |
The IMP XII tribunician dating places this aureus in the years immediately following the catastrophic Roman naval defeat at the Ludi Saeculares — a period when Augustus was consolidating command structures after serious military setbacks on the northern frontiers. The Lugdunum mint, which had supplanted Rome as the primary source of imperial gold coinage by this point, struck these pieces to pay legions campaigning in Germania and the Alpine regions.
RIC 176B is distinguished from the closely related 176A by its reverse type — a detail that has caused persistent misattribution in older collections cataloged before Crawford's revisions to the first RIC volume.