Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Ken Dorney, post: 2567998, member: 76086"]For early denominations we have documented names.  They are clear and easily understood.  But when you get to a certain point, oh, say about when the 'antoninianus' or 'double denarius' was introduced, there is no clear documentary evidence to say what these coins might have been called.  So scholars have assigned random names.  Sometimes it might seem logical, other times just kind of silly.  Personally I am a bit old fashioned so the old designations are OK for me.  But I still have a hard time accepting that a 'stater' is now a 'nomos' (what will it be called 20 years from now?).  I also dont like all the new spellings.  "C" is now a "K" (and vice versa).  It makes it very difficult for people to search for coins when a letter has been changed.  BUT, as for this situation, I do see where the old system should prevail.  We have no idea as to the denomination, but they are obviously fractions of one another, thus AE1,2,3,4.  You can call it whatever you like.  We are obviously and certainly all wrong.[/QUOTE]