Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;TIF, post: 2270158, member: 56859&quot;]As you&#039;ve probably seen in Emmett&#039;s introductory pages, he has the following to say about Nike flying vs. advancing (p. xviii):</p><p><br /></p><p>The Milne (1933) classifications of &quot;Nike flying&quot; and &quot;Nike advancing&quot; are used throughout this book, and in some cases these types are described as &quot;standing&quot;.&nbsp; The &quot;advancing&quot; type has the leading leg raised and bent at the knee, while the &quot;flying&quot; type looks much more like a standing figure, although with legs together or slightly apart.&nbsp; The reverse type catalogued in this book as &quot;Nike advancing holding a wreath in both hands&quot; may at times be synonymous with a &quot;flying&quot; type.</p><p><br /></p><p>...</p><p><br /></p><p>Unfortunately he does not mention the presence or absence of a ground line, but within this definition your coin does fit E3492.&nbsp; The (in)distinction does not bother me, but then I am not terribly concerned about distinguishing flying vs. advancing.&nbsp; Given other subtle (and not so subtle) variations which are not separated out in Emmett&#039;s classification, it strikes me as somewhat odd that he even tried to separate the different Nikes, other than sitting vs. not sitting.</p><p><br /></p><p>...</p><p><br /></p><p>Edited to add/correct:&nbsp; apparently there are no seated Nikes in Roman Egyptian coinage.[/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