Difference between the terms "head" and "bust" on a coin.

[Paddy]

Hello

As it has been described to me, on roman coins the obverse has a head when there is only throat and head. A bust would be throat, head as well as something added, such as a drapery.

Is this correct?

[David Atherton]

Hello

As it has been described to me, on roman coins the obverse has a head when there is only throat and head. A bust would be throat, head as well as something added, such as a drapery.

Is this correct?

Yes. A bust can be draped, cuirassed, or both. A 'head' lacks such fine adornments.

[Jochen]

And what do you think of the "heroic bust", e.g. of Hadrian?

And to make things more worse, Varbanov differentiates between "laureate head" and "laureate bust" with different numbers.  As user I often have problems to understand his definition.

Best regards

[Potator II]

To me the difference is the torso too, usually either draped and/or cuirassed, but sometimes nude, heroic or whatsoever.
The head is just head and neck

Best
JC

[curtislclay]

By numismatic convention, followed by Cohen, the early RIC volumes, and BMC, a "head" has no adornments except for a possible wreath or radiate crown, while a "bust" has adornments, usually a fold of the cloak or aegis on the front shoulder and behind the neck, or a cuirass worn on the upper body and covering both shoulders, or a cloak pinned around the neck, or both cuirass and cloak.

Obviously heroic nude busts including much of the upper body are exceptions and cannot be called merely "heads" because they lack adornment!

Varbanov is extremely careless so I wouldn't waste time trying to figure out a logical system behind his terminology. I don't doubt that for the most part he simply copied his bust descriptions from the catalogues he was excerpting.

[Paddy]

OK. So I did some checking what the reference material tells us.

RSC and hence Cohen would give us Bust. In RIC 2 it actually doesn't tell us which, because it simply reads Laur.  r. ; dr. l .s.  What that means is that there is something - either bust or head - which is turned to the right, it doesn't specify.

Haven't found BMC but if we go by what has been stated earlier, I think it's safe to assume that BMC would tell us that it is in indeed a "bust".

Also fair to assume that wildwinds did not cross reference and so ended up with head.

Now, if my RIC number is correct - which I think it is - then what you see on the left shoulder on my coin is a drapery. It's a very small detail on the coin, but it's there... hence what we have is a "bust", not a "head".

[David Atherton]

To me the difference is the torso too, usually either draped and/or cuirassed, but sometimes nude, heroic or whatsoever.
The head is just head and neck

Best
JC

That's how I generally understood it too. An unadorned portrait with torso/shoulder I would describe as a 'heroic (nude?) bust'.

Interestingly the new RIC II describes Domitian's portraits with aegis as 'heads' while BMCRE describes them as 'busts'. I always thought of them as 'heads' because they lack shoulders and/or torsos.

[Joe Sermarini]

Curtis has given a clear answer to the question. Authors may vary from the numismatic convention, but it is the numismatic convention.

[David Atherton]

Curtis has given a clear answer to the question. Authors may vary from the numismatic convention, but it is the numismatic convention.

Oh, I quite agree. Curtis' answer was very clear and concise. I just find it odd that BMCRE describes a 'head and neck' portrait with just an aegis as a 'bust'!

[Joe Sermarini]

It follows the convention.

[SC]

And the Aegis was technically worn on the chest - it was a design found on the breastplate.  It was not something hung around the neck.  So while there might not be much of the shoulders portrayed on some examples anything that shows an Aegis must by definition be showing part of the bust.

Shawn

[Sosius]

I'm pretty sure this would be called a bust then!