Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;lrbguy, post: 3542507, member: 88829&quot;]I don&#039;t see why you would conclude that 352 is to be identified with the coin described by Mattingly at *.&nbsp; His description of *, from Cohen, was for a coin in which the figure was <i>facing right</i>, and not merely <i>facing with head right</i> (a distinction observed in body posture). That described a coin he could not find. His footnote on * deals mainly with the various possible identities of the figure, for which he refers back to #280 as the first of the overall type under Faustina.&nbsp; His long footnote on #280 tells of that problem in identity, but not one peep about body posture.&nbsp; So if the curatorial staff today is throwing in the towel and saying that no such coin * with the figure <i>facing right</i> exists, their argument is against Cohen.&nbsp; Mattingly had merely reported what Cohen had said, probably for completeness, but admitted that nothing matched that in the Museum collection. </p><p><br /></p><p>The real question is whether or not Cohen was correct that such a coin with the figure facing right exists, and not the question of whether or not the British Museum has an example of it.&nbsp; Mattingly certainly knew that he could not prove it one way or the other based on what he had available to him.&nbsp; I&#039;m with Mattingly on this; I don&#039;t think an argument from silence will do it.&nbsp; Inasmuch as I do know of two dealers in France who still rely on Cohen more than the British references, it&#039;s worth keeping it straight.[/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