Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Valentinian, post: 8261579, member: 44316"]Photos of coins do not tell the size of the coin unless you know what you are looking at. There can be large photos of small coins and some types come in different sizes which are not distinguished by a photo. (e.g. late Roman bronze "soldier spearing fallen horseman" coins with the same design can range from 24 to 17 mm. The small boar/lion's head silver coins of Cyzicus come in various sizes that look the same.) But sometimes you can see that a coin is larger than normal because the die-diameter is visible on an over-large flan. Witness the next coin where the reverse makes it clear the flan is much larger than necessary. [ATTACH=full]1456965[/ATTACH] 35 mm. 11.58 grams.Byzantine emperor Maurice, 582-602 AD, struck year 8 (589/90) at Nicomedia. Sear 512. Byzantine coins are very often overstruck on previous coins. At 12:00 on the obverse "ANVS" from the undertype can be seen and at 3:30 on the reverse is the top of the large off-center "M" of the undertype. With that orientation "II" is clear on the lower right of the "M" and above it "X" is partially there. The size of the flan is correct for a coin of Justinian I (527-565) from year 22 (548/9) arranged: X XI Ibut the flan, at 35 mm, is significantly larger than the beading (22 mm) and the die (25 mm). Of course, if you use an old coin as a flan your new coin will be the size of the old coin which is not necessarily the intended size of the new coin. I don't have another one from the same year to show, but here is that coin compared to one of the same type from the same mint, but year 15 instead of year 8: [ATTACH=full]1456978[/ATTACH]  Measurement shows the design is the same size. but the coin on the left is larger than normal.[/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches