Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 1789625, member: 19463&quot;]Extremely nice coin but I&#039;d call it an 1865 not 1866.&nbsp;&nbsp; Sear notes that these are often overstruck on earlier folles but he goes on to confuse people.&nbsp; Under 1866 he refers the reader to page 330 where we find that 1866 is the Class G anonymous follis.&nbsp; </p><p>[ATTACH=full]288535[/ATTACH]</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>My 1866 Class G is overstruck on a Sear 1854 as mentioned on page 330.&nbsp; Yo can see Constantine X peering out from behind Christ&#039;s halo at the upper left of the obverse.&nbsp; As I see it 1865 (TIF&#039;s coin) is not listed on page 330 because it is technically not anonymous because of the <font size="4"><font face="Times"><span style="color: #000000"> C-R P-</span></font></font><font size="4"><font face="Arial">Δ legend including Romanus.&nbsp; It would have been really nice if Mr. Sear had expanded the legend so I could have a clue what those four letters stood for.&nbsp; It is even a fair question to ask about the language used since the R suggests Latin and the </font></font> <font size="4"><font face="Arial">Δ Greek.&nbsp; Perhaps the top line is Caesar Romanus while the bottom line is Romanus Despotes in Greek?????&nbsp;&nbsp; Really folks, I respect Mr. Sear and his book but would it kill scholars to be just a little educational when they write this stuff for the low mentality types (me) that buy their books??&nbsp; </font></font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><font size="4"><font face="Arial">The way all this is laid out on page 319 makes it look like he listed 1865 as the coin and 1866 as the overstruck coin but Sear never gives a separate number for an overstrike so I&#039;m sure I&#039;m reading his intent correctly here.&nbsp; </font></font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><font size="4"><font face="Arial">TIF: Feel free to make my 1866 into a GIF but knowing what was part of which strike is not obvious here.&nbsp; I like Byzantine overstrikes.&nbsp; I have a few that I can&#039;t explain to my satisfaction including some that are just plain messy.&nbsp; Of course I have an old page </font></font></p><p><a href="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/feac70byz.html" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/feac70byz.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/feac70byz.html</a></p><p><font size="4"><font face="Arial">but my one I&#039;d like you to diagnose fully is below.&nbsp; I&#039;m calling it a Class K on Class J of Alexius I.</font></font></p><p><font size="4"><font face="Arial">[ATTACH=full]288537[/ATTACH]</font></font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><font size="4"><font face="Arial">Opinion: Byzantine overstruck coins carry extra interest if not extra value only when their component parts play nicely together and can be separated in the eye of the student.&nbsp; Unexplainable hot messes are just that and worth less than ordinary coins.&nbsp; Coin of some types that show absolutely no sign of an undertype are rare but coins with interesting blends are better.&nbsp; IMHO the OP TIF GIF is a great coin.&nbsp; </font></font></p><p>[/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