Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Gallienus, post: 8300805, member: 42034&quot;]I just looked at the section on Roman siliqua as quite recently I just bought my 3rd example of this denomination (see above).&nbsp; All 3 are in nice grade.</p><p><br /></p><p>His graph on the siliquae lists a Theodosius III.&nbsp; There is no Roman Emperor of that name; he would be a Byzantine Emperor of the 8th century AD.&nbsp; I think he meant to type Theodosius II.</p><p><br /></p><p>Similarly Julian II was Syriac Orthodox patriarch of Antioch 688–708.&nbsp; I believe he meant Julian, who was an emperor 360-363 AD, who commonly minted a lot of siliquae.</p><p><br /></p><p>Another question I have is that he apparently indicated that the siliquae of Valens are made of a Tin/ Antimony mixture.&nbsp; This is misleading as I believe many good silver siliquae of Valens exist.&nbsp; He simply encountered a contemporary counterfeit as in nature, Antimony (Sb) is often encountered mixed with Tin (Sn).&nbsp; This counterfeit should&#039;ve been excluded from the analysis.</p><p><br /></p><p>Here is my siliqua of Valens: (also the 3rd of my 3 siliquae)</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1468465[/ATTACH]</p><p>(Stack&#039;s: Coin Galleries, mail bid, lot 866, July 2007)</p><p><br /></p><p>It was relatively cheap then.&nbsp; I simply wanted a Valens and had a couple to pick from.&nbsp; No serious competition.</p><p>It doesn&#039;t appear to be tin at all.</p><p>note: ancients were often not slabbed back in 2007.</p><p><br /></p><p>A correction to my above post on Constantine III. The dates could be 407-411 AD. Con-3 was co-Emperor with Honorius, however, from 409.&nbsp; Previously he was a general who declared himself Emperor in {Northern?} Gaul in 407.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in