Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Brian Bucklan, post: 2452385, member: 76544"]Thanks [USER=44316]@Valentinian[/USER], I think we have to be careful on what we refer to as "imitative" or "barbarous" issues. We all know the types where the legends and design are so far removed from the actual issued coinage that there is no mistake as to what they are. On the other hand we have this coin which without the mismatched obverse legend wouldn't be questioned as genuine. It is interesting that Dumbarton Oaks calls it barbarous (I am just quoting what he said, I do not have this volume). This obviously means they have seen enough examples to both mention the existence of the coin and make a determination that it was not an official issue. The Byzantine expert who authored the previous response told me he has both Anastasius and Justin I types. Perhaps I'm biased but I think the Persian explanation fits this coin perfectly and explains the proper Theoupolis reverse design mated with a previous Emperor's name. It can't be proven without a shadow of a doubt but that's really not that unusual in the world of ancient coins.[/QUOTE]