Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 2715164, member: 19463&quot;]That oxen coin is a nice example of a mule.&nbsp; In my &#039;field&#039; we have quite a few coins listed by &#039;experts&#039; as mules which I simply can not accept under that name.&nbsp; These are mostly branch mint products where the normal rules of the Roman mint were neither understood nor followed.&nbsp; The usual example is combining a reverse &#039;proper&#039; for the empress with the portrait of the emperor or visa-versa.&nbsp; There are even coins of the Alexandria mint obviously copied from coins in hand showing reverses proper for Lucius Verus, Pertinax or Pescennius Niger with an obverse of Septimius.&nbsp; At Rome, there are rare bronze coins made for distribution on New Year&#039;s Day with a 193 AD obverse and 194 AD reverse.&nbsp; The problem here is that coins were made in December 193 to be distributed after the TRP and COS numbers had been raised but before the mint received word that Septimius had added an IMP acclamation before January 1.&nbsp; These are not 193 obverses muled with 194 reverses but simply a fact of what happens when you are working with the best information available and get caught short by circumstances.&nbsp; &#039;Mule&#039; implies an accident or error.&nbsp; Does your coin pass this test or is there a way it can be explained as intentional?[/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