Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 4942588, member: 19463&quot;]Does this coin appear to have been struck on the reverse possibly with a ball peen hammer?&nbsp; There is flatness on both sides in the centers but the photo looks like there is more than just &#039;flat strike&#039; flatness.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>I have three to share.&nbsp; Two (officina 1 and 9) have the dot.&nbsp; They differ on where the soldier is placing his spear and knee.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;[ATTACH=full]1188131[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1188132[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>The third has no dot and always struck me as odd in the way the barbarian&#039;s leg lined up with a horse leg making him a bit odd looking.&nbsp; The * following the mintmark makes it an RIC 81. </p><p>[ATTACH=full]1188130[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>We should add that this series includes a FH3 variation with the horseman reaching back toward the soldier.&nbsp; That makes it RIC 82.&nbsp; I bought this one mostly because of what I considered great boots worn by the soldier.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1188147[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>What is the meaning of the dot?&nbsp; I do note that the dot appears on coins struck by Constantius Gallus as shown on this officina 10&nbsp; </p><p>[ATTACH=full]1188165[/ATTACH] </p><p>while there are no dots on the last coins struck for Constans.&nbsp; Those were Hut and Galley types.&nbsp; It would not be certain but it appears that the dot separates issues for Constantius II with Constantius Gallus from his earlier dotless ones with Constans.&nbsp; This strikes me as reasonable but not provable.&nbsp; I am not a late Roman specialist and invite those who are to take over now and straighten me out on the question.[/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