Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 2266427, member: 19463&quot;]I&#039;m not sure I look at the weight reductions the way you do since even the smallest asses were still divided into 12 unciae it is just that the uncia was smaller in proportion compared to what it once was.&nbsp; I have very few RR bronzes but I&#039;ll show a few.&nbsp; </p><p>First is a cast sextans with turtle/wheel type weighing 38.4g or a bit too light as most seem to be.&nbsp; There is a lot of variation on weights on these and I do not understand how to interpret the ones I have.&nbsp; I&#039;m away from home now so working from memory on the weights.&nbsp; </p><p>[ATTACH=full]450875[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>My struck as weights the full 40g making it the equivalent of the sextans above but tariffed at six times as much.&nbsp; </p><p>[ATTACH=full]450876[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>My Semis is very close to half the turtle sextans.&nbsp; I have several nice catalogs of large collections of Roman aes which seem not to be bothered by these weight variations that confuse me greatly.&nbsp; Books act like these coins can be called &#039;sextantal&#039; standard but the question I see unanswered is whether the heavier ones are earlier or if the quality control was not close. </p><p>[ATTACH=full]450877[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>Finally is my struck uncia which weighs 14g too light to be liberal but close to semilibral standard.&nbsp; I used to believe I understood more of this than I do now.&nbsp; The more I read, the less I feel comfortable with conclusions I see drawn. </p><p>[ATTACH=full]450887[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>I may start taking a scales with me to shows but I am less than sure what good that would do.[/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