Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="lordmarcovan, post: 2890390, member: 10461"][USER=81808]@Aethelred[/USER]: your pix of the coin I used to (and still) affectionately refer to as "Big Al" look pretty good.  Big Al is welcome back into my Eclectic Box anytime.  (Same goes for the "<a href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/medieval-croatia-ragusa-silver-grosso-portraying-st-blasius-and-christ-ca-1372-1438.286620/" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/medieval-croatia-ragusa-silver-grosso-portraying-st-blasius-and-christ-ca-1372-1438.286620/">Hippie Coin</a>", [USER=82194]@dadams[/USER]) <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie2" alt=";)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> What I wish [USER=81808]@Aethelred[/USER] would post (If he weren't so busy with the secret project [USER=82194]@dadams[/USER] alluded to) is a comparison shot with his lifetime Babylon tetradrachm and the posthumous one (my former "Big Al"). The difference in the flan sizes is quite striking.  Both of the posthumous tets  I've had were on gigantic sestertius- or almost silver dollar-sized flans.  Why were some posthumous coins so much more massive than the earlier ones struck in Alexander's lifetime?  I tend to think of coins getting debased and smaller over time, not bigger (but maybe that's because I gained experience with Roman Imperials before doing much with ancient Greek stuff.)[/QUOTE]