Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 8203615, member: 19463&quot;]My 1761 most certainly is not nicer but it follows the furryfrog02 example demonstrating why many of these are less than beautiful.&nbsp; It is overstruck on a Sear 1760 of Romanus I in such a way that the two reverse legends are pretty much equal and, fortunately, the +RWM of the undertype is very clear.&nbsp; The obverse is less clear and graphic but shows the cross on the head of the undertype at 10 o&#039;clock.&nbsp; Also at 6 o&#039;clock we see +RW from the start of the obverse legend.&nbsp; There are traces of the lower part of the undertype bust including at 1 o&#039;clock the rather large globe held by Romanus on these coins.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1437918[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>While I agree with your statement, my most interesting related coin shows Constantine VII and Romanus II (Sear Byzantine 1751) but is as un-copper as you can get.&nbsp; It is plated in gold over a silver core.&nbsp; Gold sticks better to silver and the weight would be less likely to attract attention so spending a bit more on the core might lower your chances of being caught.&nbsp; </p><p>[ATTACH=full]1437917[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>I would appreciate someone clear on the question to discuss the SB 1751 listing as Romanus II rather than the BMC listing as Romanus I based on the right figure being shorter???&nbsp; Byzantine coins can be fun but finding a role model for our politicians in the bunch would be very hard.[/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