Au pair of the day.

[virtvsprobi]

It's good when siblings from the same reverse die meet. Especially when they are nice!

The second coin has been bouncing from collection to collection, I hope it drops into mine for a while.

This is a rare reverse type, struck only on aurei. Pink says it was struck for the celebration of Probus' triumph in 282.

http://probvs.info/probvs/R146/R146.html


Images courtesy of Gorny & Mosch and LHS Numismatik AG.

G/<

[Numerianus]

But  it is less affordable than the  0.5 antoninianus  in "Time to sell".
I wonder that none guessed the estimate...

[virtvsprobi]

I wonder that none guessed the estimate...

Numerianus, patience is not one of your virtues, eh? You only posted that yesterday!

Thread kidnapper!

G/<

[Numerianus]

You are right, G/<.  Do you want to know my thoughts about the above coins?
I think  about the idea expressed by someone clever: Probus  was numismat himself!
At least, his coinage shows that he was, probably, personally involved.
Even ordinary coins  are witnesses of this.  The  aurei is really the high art of Roman gold work.
Incredible.  Overpassing the great Greek masters.

[virtvsprobi]

Overpassing the great Greek masters.

I like it, but I'd curb my enthusiasm some and not make such a statement.

G/<

[slokind]

I'd say equaling  the Greek masters of the Macedonian Renascence of the 10th century, meaning the illustrated Mss and the ivories.  Pat L.

[Numerianus]

I understand what you  do mean: overcrowded.  In fact, it is  the art evolution rather than decadence....

[slokind]

Yes, but I meant also that they have the body language, the bodily expression of Middle Byzantine art at its finest.  Pat L.
That style (or this?) is captured by the very best original Bulgarian work of the 20th century, which I greatly admire (and I trust they won't mind my admiring it here); for more, go to Numismatik Lanz:

[virtvsprobi]

Looking for other typologically similar examples (curule chair seated emperor), I ran across this Philip I.
The reverse is almost Spartan by comparison.



G/<

[virtvsprobi]

Pat,

When Slavey wants to, he can do great stuff!

G/<

[slokind]

I love the skill and humor with which he and Hubert Lanz have contrived to use the Ara Pacis frieze as a model for the family group at right.  The other one signed S. A. Petrov is for Eggers.  The rest at the web site are very nice but normal medals.  I have noticed that subtle hint of very fine Byzantine, the art tradition they grew up with, after all, even on some of his work where it was the last thing intended, and also in other, lesser Bulgarian work.  I haven't found good enough photos of Christodoulos work to see whether he, too, was similarly affected.  Although I do not find most of Slavey's work very deceptive (and I was allowed to examine a number of pieces at Sofia, for sale, honestly labeled--yes, I know...can be altered), he not only was highly skilled but very intelligent about the art, and loved it.  I don't know whether he is still alive, but he must be getting on, if so.  I mean, like, who could hate Cavino?  Pat L.

[Robert_Brenchley]

That reverse scene may be crowded, but it hangs together as a whole, unlike say the DAFNE reverses of Constantine, which are just crowded.

[LordBest]

What interests me msot about the coins is that Probus is depicted with a distinct cuirass and mail coif, whereas on msot antoniniani he is either wearing a mail hauberk or all that is engraved is the coif. I do think the reverse is over crowded, it really doesnt do much for me.
                                                                LordBest.

[curtislclay]

LordBest,
         I have no idea what point you are making about the bust type. 
         Please elaborate, using synonyms for "coif" and "hauberk"!
Yours,
Curtis

[Robert_Brenchley]

I can't see any great difference in the armour, but then I'm decidedly no expert. Looking at that reverse again, the three figures all seem to have eye contact, and that's what binds it into a scene rather than a collection of items; the trophies actually look as though they're behind the figures rather than hanging in midair.

[virtvsprobi]

Probus is wearing muscle cuirass decorated with aegis on the pectoral plate. A hint of paludamentum on the right shoulder. I don't see any "mail coif" here.
A typical Rome mint bust with Bastien's "moyenne égide a²".

G/<

[LordBest]

The pectoral plate is mostly likely mail, and probably part of a coif. Quite a few aegis heads have been found with hooks on the back for being attached to mail. I could be wrong of course but its engraved the way mail is engaved, and on later coins it becomes quite clear it is a coif rather than a pectoral plate.
Curtis, a hauberk is the correct English term for a suit of mail armour, a coif is a piece of mail head gear that when worn is often left draped over the shoulders, before combat a hood of mail is pulled up over the head and often secured with cords. It can prevent all sorts of nastiness like getting your throat cut. As to the point i'm trying to make, there isnt much of one, I'm just interested in the variety of Roman military depictions on coins and how they are often mislabelled or misinterpreted. Pictures of a hauberk and a coif attached. Unfortunately I could not find any picture of someone with their coif down to illustrate how I see what Probus is wearing.
                                                                   LordBest.

[Numerianus]

Was coif invented/used by Romans?  This type of military gear  seems to be medieval ( at least, in movies).
Simiar question is also for hauberk because in ``general  public" books Romans are depicted in a kind of cuirass...

[virtvsprobi]

I could write a lot on the subject, but let this Athena make a rather emphatic rebuttal to the hauberked, mail coiffed folly.



Has Athena also been "misinterpreted" as wearing an Aegis, while in fact she has a hauberk on?
Just because something is stippled, it's not automatically lorica hamata!


Likewise, on the coin below, Trajan is wearing a fold of aegis, which is later much more stylized, but still not a mail hood!




Image courtesy of P. Gysen.

Here's exactly the type of aegis which is decorating the pectoral plates of Probus' cuirass on the aurei:



G/<

[LordBest]

Numerianus, it is unclear how early the coif was developed, Justinian and other early Byzantine emperors are shown wearing them, but the Persians and other eastern empires were wearing them in the Roman Republican period.
I'm actually finding this very interesting because although I'm not positive the pectoral plate is mail, or a coif, or whatever, Greek pectoral plates, of which one or two have survived, actually go behind the main breastplate, not in front of it so you cannot actually see it. Dont ask me why. I dont see why any of these depictions presented here so far cannot be mail however. Plates which go around the chest and shoulder at this height would need a series of sliding rivet joints and such like to allow movement of the arms in combat, evne then it would restrict movement somewhat, mail would not.
                                                                   LordBest.

[virtvsprobi]

Not too much reason for Athena to be wearing chain mail, plenty of reasons to be wearing the aegis!

Furthermore, I find it highly unlikely that heroically nude busts would show not the aegis, but a folded mail hood on the shoulder.
Especially when snakes are poking out of the arrangement.

G/<

[LordBest]

Attached is a picture of a Roman parade armour pectoral plate, just the sort of thing higher status Romans wore, complete with aegis in the middle.
I find it inexplicable that a heroic naked torso would have anything with which to attach a pectoral plate to, pectoral plates are generally attached by straps which attach to the top and/or sides of the backplate, assuming it is not integral to the breastplate as in lorica segmentata. 
The Aegis of Trajan could easily be attached to some kind of cloth cloak draped around him, the pins used to attach aegis's to mail could be used to hook into cloth if they were sharp, but this is speculation. Either way the aegis can be removable. Trajan is not wearing a mail coif, nor is he wearing a pectoral plate, but he is wearing an aegis. Probus is wearing a cuirass, and perhaps a pectoral plate, perhaps a mail coif with attached aegis, perhaps a decorative mail "cloak" with attached aegis.
                                                             LordBest.

[Numerianus]

The type of the armor was conditioned by many factors, not only military but also economical.
It seems that the forcr of the Roman army was in collective coherent actions and this means that heavy
individual protection was less important  than in middle ages where  actions were much less coherent 
(remember the battle at Azincourt?).  Again the parade cuirass could be quite different from that
used in combats...

[LordBest]

Again the parade cuirass could be quite different from that
used in combats...

The only way to kill some of the heavy cavalry of this age, like the klibanarii and later the kataphraktoi, short of pegging them with a ballista or what have you, was to bludgeon them off their horses, then slit their throat. A coif under the helmet complicated things somewhat, and integrated coifs made it so you had to basically stab them in the eye, which was surpsingly hard when your victim is thrashing about, screaming bloody murder in the middle of a battle.
Absolutely, but given what Probus is wearing on the aurei, I would say he is in parade gear. On some of his coins he is certainly depicted wearing the gear of a common soldier, and no aegis in sight. I used to have a nice antoninianus with a great 3/4 military bust which showed him in jst a simple mail hauberk and nothing else.
                                                               LordBest.

[Numerianus]

There were various  tricks agains cavalry.  At Azincourt  every English archer has a sharpened stick. The soil was mild and they could
plant  them as a kind of low barrier. The cavalry  could not rush through the obstacle. The horses, wounded by these  sticks
and arrows,  dropped  away knights and run to the advanced infantry --  it was the beginning of the disaster.
You know well also that  at this time there was a specific and popular weapon against armour: hammer. 

It is also known that in the third century  Roman army was not able to fight against mobile groups of Barbarians.  Gallienus 
modernized the army to meet new challenges. It would be interesting to know what innovations appeared at this period.
It may happen that the new armor  was attractive and this is the reason why emperors were more and more frequently
depicted in their parade  or combat gear.   

[virtvsprobi]

[LordBest]

[virtvsprobi]

[Robert_Brenchley]

[Numerianus]

[LordBest]

[Numerianus]

[curtislclay]

[slokind]

[virtvsprobi]