Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;lrbguy, post: 3090603, member: 88829&quot;]I think you are quite right that you have found a die match.&nbsp; Maybe the one and only, but the mark is present.&nbsp; Now, is it progressive in some way?&nbsp; A ding in the hammer die that gets deeper with age/usage?&nbsp; I&#039;m not ready to call it an officina mark, but it certainly is a mark in the die.&nbsp; Intentional?&nbsp; I doubt it, but I cannot say.&nbsp; It&#039;s tantalizing that it is the same shape as the Roman numeral 1 later.&nbsp; The mark on the coin I bought was not mentioned by the seller either.&nbsp; It just caught my eye, in part because it is suspiciously well positioned and configured.&nbsp; Were they testing something just prior to the introduction of the series in 248?&nbsp; Who knows?</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>You may have misunderstood.&nbsp; Except for the first coin I showed, both RIC and BMCRE recognize the mark series for the SAECVLARES coins as officina marks.&nbsp; Roman numerals, yes, but for the number of the officina assigned to work on a particular reverse for a particular member of the family.&nbsp; The marks are applied consistently in a pattern of assignments.&nbsp; This approach starts with the House of Philip but is gradually adopted by later imperial mint masters as well, as you have been observing.&nbsp; With Diocletian&#039;s currency reform it reaches full flower.[/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