Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Roman Collector, post: 3542536, member: 75937&quot;]Then how do you explain the lack of a catalog number for a coin with the same features as 280 but the obverse legend DIVA FAVSTINA? How do you explain the inaccurate description of 352? How do you explain the subsequent change to the cross-reference of 352 and the change in the description of the reverse at the BMC&#039;s website?</p><p><br /></p><p>The only explanation is that I have given -- that Mattingly thought they didn&#039;t have a coin like 280 but with the DIVA FAVSTINA legend but wanted to include it for the sake of completeness, so he added it after 353, with the proper description of the reverse. Meanwhile, he notes the existence of 352 -- but it&#039;s cataloged as having a reverse type with the goddess&#039;s right arm extended (not pulling at her veil), but with head facing right. </p><p><br /></p><p>Had he looked at coin 252, he would have made it No. 253 (No. 253 with the veiled bust would have become 252 and taken its place) and described it properly. In the footnote section, it would have said &quot;253. C. 40 (<i>rev.</i> Aeternitas or Pudicitia): one might also ...&quot; This is how the notes to the various coins read in BMCRE. See, for example, the rest of the notes on p. 54.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]941738[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>Some curator subsequently noted the error in the description of BMCRE 352, changed the reverse description and noted it matched RIC 346a, which cites Cohen.[/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