Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;zumbly, post: 1986999, member: 57495&quot;]Thanks, Doug.&nbsp; Some trawling through Forvm shows that even those with better knowledge disagree on the number and names of the mints, so your approach would seem to be prudent.&nbsp; As it stands it appears that the old RIC assignation to&nbsp; Lyons is pretty much discounted these days, and the prevailing thought is that there was either only one mint (no agreement on whether it was Cologne or Trier) or two mints (with either Cologne or Trier serving as the primary).&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>This useful page supposedly has a more recent proposed arrangement of Trier as primary and Cologne as secondary from analysis of the Cunetio Hoard:</p><p><a href="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/lateromancoinage/gallic/postumus.html" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/lateromancoinage/gallic/postumus.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.forumancientcoins.com/lateromancoinage/gallic/postumus.html</a> </p><p><br /></p><p>As to whether or not portrait styles should be attributed to different engravers or periods within the same mint or to distinct mints, I can find no serious discussion so I guess that matter is still up in the (h)air.[/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