Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;DonnaML, post: 8277381, member: 110350&quot;]I do see what you mean, but looking at the two photos together, repeatedly and as carefully as possible, I am pretty sure that the apparent difference is a product of the extreme blurriness of the emperor&#039;s left shoulder drapery when the 1966 photo is enlarged, as compared to the clarity of the current photo in color. I think the pattern present on the shoulder as seen in the current photo is actually there in the 1966 photo as well. It&#039;s just almost impossible to see. As I&#039;ve said before, I hope that whenever I receive the hard copy of the old catalog, the photo of that coin is at least a little bit clearer. As I see it now, I&#039;m not even sure that it&#039;s a photo of the coin itself rather than a photo of a cast. It&#039;s really too bad that the 1966 catalog doesn&#039;t give the specimen&#039;s weight or diameter.</p><p><br /></p><p>In my opinion, the top of the &quot;L&quot; in Valentinian&#039;s name on the obverse of the old photo is left as the only (seemingly) clear difference between the two photos. So we have a situation in which (1) one specimen of a coin -- the <u>only</u> specimen of that particular variety from that officina known until now, according to Depeyrot and every other source I&#039;ve consulted -- is sold to an unknown buyer in Paris in 1966 and is not seen on the market thereafter until now; (2) approximately 55 years later, Odysseus Numismatics purchases an old Paris collection formed in the 1950s and 1960s, a collection that includes a coin of that exact same variety from the same officina; (3) comparing photos of the two coins, the reverse is 100% identical in every respect down to the precise flan shape, the flow lines, the design and position of the figures and letters, and, on the reverse figure of the emperor, the partly missing or worn left arm holding Victory; and (4) the obverse is 99% identical in terms of flan shape, flow lines, and the design and positioning of the figures and letters, with the exception of the top part of one single letter.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>What are the chances that a second specimen of the same exact variety, 99-100% identical in every respect and closer than a double die match -- a variety previously known from only one example -- would show up in the same city after 55 years when an old collection is sold, and actually not be the same coin? To me, a conclusion that these are two different coins would be far more implausible than a conclusion that they&#039;re the same coin, and that there must be some other explanation for the difference in that &quot;L.&quot;&nbsp; As I speculated previously, perhaps the length of that part of the &quot;L&quot; is just an optical illusion, and there was a deposit of some kind there that has since been removed. That seems more likely to me than any theory under which these are two different coins.&nbsp; If [USER=79368]@Barry Murphy[/USER] would like to take a look at the photos and contribute any thoughts, I&#039;d certainly appreciate it.[/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