[PUGACHEV]

I would not take the portraits on that coin at face value. In the Roman world of that time, a strong chin and a big nose were considered attractive. If you look at most coins from that era you'll find those same exaggerated features on almost everyone.

[Redbob]

"I would not take the portraits on that coin at face value."

Har har har:
A little numismatist humor there, eh?

[TruthConquers]

Boy, that sounds reasonable to me. Now that you mention it, you have to wonder at that time if realistic portraits were even done on coins. Even that is a stretch to assume for so long ago.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

I agree, Cleopatra by all accounts was not a stunning beauty, but had an aura of sexuality that added to her beauty. Also, she was very intelligent and as Queen and Pharaoh (she was the last Pharaoh), she probably had the best clothes, jewelry and makeup.She was largely of Macedonian (Greek) ancestry being a part of the Ptolemaic dynasty.

[djf]

would not take the portraits on that coin at face value. In the Roman world of that time, a strong chin and a big nose were considered attractive. If you look at most coins from that era you'll find those same exaggerated features on almost everyone.


Exactly. Minting a coin with crude methods means you will always exaggerate things like ears and noses, otherwise the dude would look like some amorphous blob without any body parts whatsoever.

We ain't talking a Rembrandt here.