Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Terence Cheesman, post: 3525890, member: 86498&quot;]Saurez I really admire the work that you have done. It must have taken a great deal of effort. However I do have some issues with the conclusions. If I understand the article in &quot;dirtyoldcoins&quot; correctly you used auction results in assessing populations of Roman Imperial coins.&nbsp; I would think that auction results would skew the results. There are many factors that would affect the velocity of any coins presence in auctions. I would assume that large numbers of coins especially those of lower value such as Roman fourth century A.D. Ae 3&#039;s and 4&#039;s as well as some others would not be seen in any number in auctions unless they were grouped together in bulk lots. This should have the effect of reducing their population in auctions. Conversely coins of some Emperors such as Caius or Nero or coins of a popular series such as the Hadrian &quot;travel series&quot;may be able to enter the auction circuit at a lesser grade than what otherwise would be the norm thus bumping up their auction presence.</p><p>&nbsp; I agree with you that the concept of rarity in ancient coins is a difficult question to answer. I always preferred the term desirability. Didius Julianus and Niger might not be as scarce as Hannibalianus&nbsp; but it seems more people would like to have one of them, and since they are at least scarce they command a higher price.[/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