Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Curtisimo, post: 3617589, member: 83845&quot;]Thanks [USER=88829]@lrbguy[/USER] .&nbsp; This is why CoinTalk is such a great resource. You are certainly correct about the leading dot and, I agree, it appears that there is a leading dot only.&nbsp; You may also be correct about the K vs H in the mintmark. When I first looked at it in hand I believed it to be a H but now that I examine the photos I’m not so sure.&nbsp; I will need to go back and compare to other examples and amend the OP accordingly. In the meantime opinions welcome.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]969258[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>Edit: On further inspection of other examples I’m going to stick with my attribution to Heraclea.&nbsp; Though I agree that the dot will change the attribution to RIC 95</p><p><br /></p><p>An H attributable to Heraclea </p><p>[ATTACH=full]969264[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>A “K” attributable to Cyzicus - from what I can tell the “K” from this mint is pretty distinct from an “H” with the arms sticking out at a distinct angle from the stem. </p><p>[ATTACH=full]969265[/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