Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 3296252, member: 19463&quot;]No.&nbsp; You are being legalistic and not rounding off to a significant, whole number.&nbsp; The fact that the tetradrachm was given as 17g. suggests the quarter size would be a fraction over 4g. That is why I said 4g. rather than 4.000000g. The question was whether the Syracuse coin was a tetradrachm or a 20 litra piece.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>The scientific community realizes that names like “homo neanderthalensis” are for convenience and subject to change with future discoveries or reworking of old data.&nbsp; Few of the original &quot;scientific&quot; names survive intact.&nbsp; There is no such convention in the numismatic community and too many people take denomination names as a fact rather than an attempt to ease communication.&nbsp; I trust your new book explains why &#039;damma&#039; was used and for what coins it is appropriate to be applied rather than just throwing it out there to be accepted.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>I tend to ignore anyone who argues about pronunciation of ancient terms.&nbsp; Certainly it is a field to study when specific to time and place but anyone who has met English speaking people from modern/historical London, Maine, Louisiana and Australia has to realize that people have been playing that game forever.[/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