I posited recently in a
gallery post (that not many clicked on), that I felt the solidii of Phocas were (on
average) cruder than those of
Maurice Tiberius before him, or
Heraclius that succeeded him. This is, of course, entirely subjective and only my opinion.
In general, I think many emperors would have seen their best celators working the
gold coinage, with lesser artisans producing the more common copper-based coinage of the
byzantine period. Despite this, all early 7th century solidii are crude compared to the coinage of
Anastasius,
Justin I, and earlier. In my subjective opinion, the
style improves again around the time of Leontios at the very end of the 7th century.
We know that Phocas, when he was emperor, was not well liked in
his empire.
His reign marked a low point for
his era, and apart from an odd
affinity for him in
Italy, most subjects would have likely been glad or indifferent when
Heraclius ascended.
So my question is - does anyone think the popularity of an emperor would have influenced how
good a job the celators would have done, trying to portray him?
Here is a link to a typical example of a Phocas
solidus from my
collection that illustrates what I mean by "crude". In hand, this is a well struck coin with little wear. But it's not a great example of artistry.
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=173531I also find Phocas' coins to be on the more affordable end of
Byzantine gold - perhaps also because the artistry is "meh", and the
man himself is generally not well thought of.
What do you think?