Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Jochen1, post: 7648378, member: 103829&quot;](continued)</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1315035[/ATTACH]</p><p>(3) Moesia inferior, Markianopolis, Philip I &amp; Otacilia, AD 244-249 (Apollo Lykeios),</p><p>The third example should have Π / OΛ / EI / T(ΩN) in the left field of the rev. with the ΩN ligated at the end. But the goofball of die cutter&nbsp; has written N / OΛ / EI / T(ΩN), but then subsequently made the N into a Π by adding a horizontal line at the top. But the N underneath can no longer be denied.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1315036[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>(4) Moesia inferior, Markianopolis, Philip I &amp; Otacilia, AD 244-249 (Apollo Lykeios).</p><p>I have since been fortunate enough to find an ex. with the as yet unimproved N / O / Λ / EI / T(ΩN) in the field! This version is considerably rarer. I myself had never seen it before.</p><p>Ref: AMNG I/1, 1199 var.; Hristova/Jekov (2014) 6.41.7.1 (this coin).</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1315039[/ATTACH]</p><p>(5) Moesia inferior, Nicopolis ad Istrum, Septimius Severus, AD 193-211 (river god).</p><p>Pick&#039;s specimens from Paris and Vienna have NEIKOΠ. Pick writes that this was obviously improved from NEIΠOT, as also shown by the picture on pl. XVII, 34. My specimen clearly has the NEIΠOT legend error on the Rs, i.e. here the legend error on the stamp has not yet been improved</p><p>Ref: AMNG I/1, 1310; Hristova/Hoeft/Jekov (2020) 8.14.32.14 corr. (this coin)</p><p><br /></p><p><b>Legend error or intention?</b></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1315037[/ATTACH]</p><p>(1) Moesia inferior, Markianopolis, Septimius Severus, AD 193-211 (Dionysos).</p><p>The illustration of AMNG I/1, 556 on plate XVI clearly shows the legend MAP - K - IANOΠOΛITΩ, while my coin lacks the I. However, the upper end of the thyrsos is inserted into the legend in such a way that it looks like an I. Now it is quite possible that this tempted the die cutter to omit the actual I, just as Varbanov and Hristova/Jekov did not notice that the I was missing.</p><p>Or there is the possibility that the upper end of the thyrsos took over the function of the I at the same time. Was such a thing possible at that time? Or is it just an unintentional, but interesting legend error?</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1315040[/ATTACH]</p><p>(2) Moesia inferior, Nikopolis ad Istrum, Gordian III, AD 238-244 (Glykon).</p><p>Another example of the link between legend and drawing is shown on this coin of Gordian III. The rev. legend reads VΠ CAB MOΔECT(OV) - NIKOΠOΛEIT(ΩN) (ΠP)OC ICT.</p><p>The Glykon serpent is depicted with an imposing mane of rays each with a dot above it. This mane merges seamlessly into the legend. The dots are also above the N of NIKOPO and the vertical lines of the N imitate the rays, a clear connection of representation and legend. This nice example shows that such playfulness with legend and representation was not an isolated case.</p><p>Ref.: AMNG I/1, -; Hristova/Hoeft/Jekov (2020) 8.36.22.2 (this coin)</p><p><br /></p><p><b>References:</b></p><p>(1) Pick, AMNG I/1, 1898</p><p>(2) Hristova/Hoeft/Jekov, The Coinage of Nicopolis ad Istrum, 2020</p><p>(3) Hristova/Jekov, The Coinage of Marcianopolis, 2014</p><p>(4) <a href="http://www.numismatikforum.de/" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.numismatikforum.de/" rel="nofollow"><u>www.numismatikforum.de</u></a></p><p><br /></p><p>Best regards[/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