In the study of portraiture, portrait types are often named after what is believed to be the best representative example of the type in sculpture. Other times a type is referred to as the “Haupttypus” (main type), assuming that the type most common in sculpture was intended to be the subject’s main mode of public representation. These naming conventions are often misleading. Despite the primacy given to the sculpted portraits, there are broad divergences between media that are illuminating about the differing motivations behind their production.

Among studies of the sculpted portraits of Sabina, one type appears on 51% of known sculpted replicas, with the next most common type making up only 23%. However, in imperial coinage the type only represents 23% of known aureus dies and 1% of known dupondius/as dies. Additionally, the type is completely absent from the Roman provincial coins. Similar discrepancies exist when comparing the most plentiful type on imperial coinage, making up about 55% of all obverse die portraits, with its minimal presence on the provincial coinage (14%) and in sculpture (3%). The same is true for the most common type in provincial coinage, which represents 82% of provincial obverse portraits, but less than a third of portraits on imperial coins or in sculpture.