Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;David@PCC, post: 3535920, member: 80556&quot;]I briefly glanced this post before you deleted your observations. I think you mentioned the eastern hoard from Van Heesch&#039;s article, die axis, mintmarks, and....? It seems his 1993 article is the one everyone references. I am grateful for his research and even consulted him on one of my coins. The hoard he referenced was incomplete as I understand it, only being half present when studied out of possibly 2000 coins. Though a data point I can&#039;t use a half hoard as basis for dating. </p><p>Die axis can be useful in some cases, but I don&#039;t think that is true here. Being at 6 or 12 o&#039;clock could merely be coincidental and don&#039;t believe that is proof of belonging to a specific date. </p><p>We both agree on the mintmark dates (at least for series I), but he does not go into much detail about his proposed date of 312 other than it resembles other styles from that year. This was the easiest to determine as the coins fall into the 299 to 310 time frame via workshop 9. </p><p>I let the evidence lead me to conclusions and am open to discussion especially since I will be publishing an article on these.[/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