Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 1711676, member: 19463&quot;]I find interesting the fact that the editors of RIC Volume X that covers this period realized the fact that so many coins are missing the mintmark that a volume like VI-IX requiring you to first know the mint would be very hard to use.&nbsp; In this case page 282 shows first a set of drawings of the 7 reverse monograms followed by listings of the six mints that issued this type coin.&nbsp; It really was the only way that makes sense for these coins.&nbsp; We are lucky that these monograms can be read when there are no letters left on the obverse.&nbsp; It is rare to find a coin that has obverse legend, reverse mintmark and is good looking (surfaces).&nbsp; RIC lists 35 variations on these coins but I&#039;d guess fewer than 5% of the coins you see could be attributed clearly to which variation showing the details that separate them.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>Constantinople is most common.&nbsp; My example is RIC 545 (monogram 2, cross above and a trace of the CON mintmark) and most common of all the types.&nbsp; I bought it for the obverse.&nbsp; </p><p>[ATTACH]263293.vB[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>The free gift coin confirms as RIC 535 (CHES and cross but monogram 1).&nbsp; Monogram 1 differs from #2 in that it lacks the L at the bottom of the right leg of the M seen on the common CON variation.[/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