Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Valentinian, post: 2484980, member: 44316&quot;]I wonder how many of you Roman coin collectors would consider adding an emperor with a &quot;Roman Provincial&quot; instead of a &quot;Roman Imperial&quot; coin? Here is a provincial coin of Elagabalus (218-22):</p><p>[ATTACH=full]524992[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]524993[/ATTACH] </p><p>Elagabalus, 218-222.&nbsp; 25 mm.,</p><p>Struck at Odessus, Thrace</p><p>City name in Greek on reverse.</p><p>Sear GI 3041/reverse of 3654. Weber 2664, plate 102.</p><p>Nice portrait. Good surfaces. </p><p><br /></p><p>It is 25 mm and has an excellent fleshy portrait of the decadent young emperor.</p><p>Compare that coin to this one of Elagabalus:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]524994[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]524995[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>This one is a Roman imperial denarius.</p><p>Denarius. FIDES EXERCITVS.</p><p>RIC 68, p. 33. BMC 15, plate 85.8, page 532. &quot;218-219 AD&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>It is only 20 mm. But, I bet many would much prefer the second coin to the first for two reasons. One, it is silver (debased), and two, it is &quot;imperial.&quot; So, I figure the second is worth more.&nbsp; But, how much more? </p><p><br /></p><p>So, I am asking if you don&#039;t collect provincial coins at all, only occasionally, or if you collect them as much as imperial when the size and type are appealing?[/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