Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;philologus_1, post: 3032351, member: 92212&quot;]Growing up I did as MANY others did (and I presume many still do), by using the blue Whitman folders for Indian Cents, Lincoln Cents, Jefferson Nickels, Mercury Dimes, etc. The clear intentional <i>modus operandi</i> was to &quot;fill the holes&quot;... all the holes... each and every one of the holes.&nbsp; I have always taken the term &quot;hole filler&quot; as a descriptor for doing exactly that. With that in mind then, a true Judean and/or Biblical coin collector, who also was a &quot;hole filler&quot;, would literally desire and work toward getting an example of each and every Hendin reference number.&nbsp; Ray, I don&#039;t see you attempting to do that.&nbsp; Yet.&nbsp; <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />&nbsp; &nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>I love the chart you made!&nbsp; It makes me want to do likewise.&nbsp; And you have some lovely examples!!!</p><p><br /></p><p>If I may, I&#039;d like to humbly offer some edits/refinements:</p><p><br /></p><p>I notice the first five coins utilize the Hendin reference numbers from Hendin&#039;s Volume 4, while the remainder of the coins utilize the current reference numbers from Volume 5.&nbsp; By changing to all Volume 5 numbers it would put the coins in an improved order... chronologically if nothing else.</p><p><br /></p><p>The chart is titled coins of Jerusalem, but not all the coins shown were struck in that city. At least one is from Tiberias in Galilee (Antipas), at least one is from Samaria (Herod I 8-prutot), at least one from Ashkelon (Hendin_1120), and I believe there may be a type or two from Caesarea Maritima.</p><p><br /></p><p>The Hendin_1170 is a four-prutot issue, rather than a two-prutot.</p><p><br /></p><p>The Hendin_1360 is accurately shown specifically dated to 67/68AD. However, with the same specificity, the Hendin_1369 can be listed as 69/70AD rather than the slightly broader range as shown (66-70AD).&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>Forigve what some may view as a nitpick, but the Hendin_1131 says &quot;Antiochus VII <i><u>under</u></i> Hyrcanus I&quot; even though Hyrcanus was never <u><i>above</i></u> the Seleucid emperor.&nbsp; At most it can only be said, &quot;Antiochus VII <i><u>with</u></i> Hyrcanus I&quot; (which is the way David Hendin terms this type). </p><p><br /></p><p>But having said all that, again I say, I love your chart so much it makes me want to do likewise with my own coins! And as the well-known saying goes, &quot;imitation is the highest form of flattery&quot;![/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