Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 3452227, member: 19463&quot;]We always point out that every die was an individual creation but when the die cutter is more than a little weak in Latin, all bets are off what you will get.&nbsp; I suspect both Martin and I have something approaching a hundred coins of this era that are not listed exactly in RIC.&nbsp; Some errors are very common certainly including the use of the Greek rho P for the Latin R. Some coins use a C (lunate Sigma) for S.&nbsp; B for R is harder to understand since both languages did use a B.&nbsp; The others are less common but often involve letters not matching in Greek and Latin.&nbsp; Then we have the matter of the COS dates which simply do not follow the rules used at Rome. Lately we are seeing renaming of the various mints disavowing the work of Mattingly who probably was wrong a bit but I&#039;ve not seen the proof of the new mint names either.&nbsp; I&#039;m not sure how Martin feels about the matter..... I&#039;m not sure how I feel either.&nbsp; Should we be saying the mint formerly known as Emesa?&nbsp; Alexandria seems pretty certain from the style but the coins are found in places other than Egypt so I could not say we have absolute proof that the denarii were made there unless we can prove that the Alexandrian tetradrachms were not made somewhere else and shipped in for use in that city.&nbsp; I am a fan of the concept of mobile mint operations moving with the Emperor but there is no proof for that either (just non scientific fanboys who see merit in several ideas. People who need absolutes of anything probably would be better collecting something else.[/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