Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;tenacious, post: 1017333, member: 14553&quot;]Your point is well taken that the process may have changed from Greek to Roman times.</p><p><br /></p><p>But just by coincidence I just read a post about an Alexander the Great tetradrachm that had 7 reverses paired to one obverse. See <a href="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=66311.75" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=66311.75" rel="nofollow">Barry Murphy&#039;s post second one down here.</a> So I didn&#039;t have to go far to find an example.</p><p><br /></p><p>And while that many reverses paired to an obverse isn&#039;t the rule. It certainly happened.</p><p><br /></p><p>So the question is, were they rotating dies or did the obverse just outlast that many reverses?</p><p><br /></p><p>But if they were rotating as a rule wouldn&#039;t we see that for almost all obverses?</p><p><br /></p><p>Since you have experience with them, my question to you is -</p><p><br /></p><p>With the Septimius Severus Eastern mint denarii, do you see consistently high reverse dies paired to obverses? Or only in the example you posted?</p><p><br /></p><p>The answer to that would seem to point to whether rotating dies was a standard practice at that mint and time, or not.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp; Just for the sake of clarity. When I wrote:</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I should have said instead that obverse dies <u><i>can</i></u> outlast reverse dies by a factor of seven or eight. I didn&#039;t mean to sound as if they all did, because of course they certainly didn&#039;t.[/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