Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 5401507, member: 19463&quot;]Where we differ is the assumption that using what RIC authors thought was an inappropriate reverse was an error requiring calling them &#039;Hybrid&#039;.&nbsp; The question is whether not following the Rome mint way is by definition an error.&nbsp; I doubt we will ever find the seated IVST for Septimius or for Pescennius but anything is possible.&nbsp; I am only aware of five of the Domnas (all die duplicates) and would be much less surprised if that many more turn up.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>I know you meant VENERI VICTR but I also assume you know of the spelled out version from the mint formerly known as &quot;Emesa&quot;.&nbsp; I don&#039;t see renaming it to another city (&quot;Antioch&quot;) which is equally unproven.&nbsp; I still prefer the travelling mint idea but don&#039;t care what you call it as long as you use quotation marks.&nbsp; When you publish the new RIC IV and explain the matter more fully will be time enough to change my labels. </p><p>[ATTACH=full]1233341[/ATTACH][/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