Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;curtislclay, post: 7719512, member: 89514&quot;]Doug,</p><p><br /></p><p>Dating Philip&#039;s Eastern antoniniani would be a tough job. It&#039;s unlikely that the types will fall into such a neat and systematic sequence of issues as at Rome.</p><p><br /></p><p>The only types that can definitely be attributed to 249 are those using the Eastern mint&#039;s own TR P VI rev. legend, P M TR P VI COS P P, with types Felicitas standing, copied from Rome, plus three original types that Rome didn&#039;t use for Philip, namely emperor sacrificing and lion walking left or right.</p><p><br /></p><p>Otherwise, virtually every Eastern type copies a Roman type, so cannot have been struck in the East before the mint of Rome introduced that same type.</p><p><br /></p><p>However, should we believe that the other explicit dates on Eastern antoniniani, TR P III (rare) and TR P IIII (common), were really struck in those named years 246 and 247? Or might they have been struck later, in 248 or 249, the Eastern mint merely having copied Rome-mint coins that were already a couple of years old?</p><p><br /></p><p>I find that the beard-no beard criterion generally works quite well for separating father and son. There are some differences in facial features also. I would assume you have no difficulty attributing the three antoniniani you illustrate to Philip I followed by two Philip II?[/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