Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Roman Collector, post: 3543806, member: 75937&quot;]Yes, that&#039;s what I meant. Thank you for bringing the error to my attention; I have edited my post above to avoid future confusion.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I, too, wondered if BMC 352 was &quot;sown with stars.&quot; Let&#039;s take another look at the figure on the reverse of their specimen.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]942046[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>The goddess clearly is messing with her veil, not extending her right arm. I concur that the stars -- not unequivocally present -- are not as clearly rendered as on the specimen with the DIVA AVG FAVSTINA reverse. I think we&#039;d have to examine the specimen in-hand. Let&#039;s compare the reverse figure on my example.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]942052[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>Although mine is more worn, there are stars present, which we can&#039;t say unequivocally about BMC 352. But otherwise, the reverse design is the same.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Agree. That&#039;s the error to which I referred in the OP.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>It may have been. As I have pointed out <a href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/aeternitas.330879/" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/aeternitas.330879/">elsewhere on this forum</a>, the coins with the DIVA FAVSTINA obverse legend and the AETERNITAS reverse were issued in AD 150/151 to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the empress&#039;s death. Thus, BMC 280 and 352 may have been minted a decade apart. Some iconographic variation is to be expected, and I think this accounts for the difference in how prominent the stars are on the figure&#039;s abdomen. Nobody knows when the DIVAE FAVSTINAE version of the coin was issued and your hypothesis of it being an intermediate stage is as good as any. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Type (d), actually, because it&#039;s a left-facing veiled bust (type (c) is left-facing bare-headed). And, had this variety been known to Mattingly, it should have been included. I suspect he was unaware of this variety. It is listed in Temeryazev and Makarenko as No. 105.</p><p><br /></p><p>I think that 353 should have replaced 352 in the list of &quot;Juno (?)&quot; types with her right arm extended as the (b) bust variety, followed by a * listing for the (d) bust variety, with 352 becoming 353 with an accurate description of the reverse figure and a comment about the correlation to Cohen 40 and the presence/absence of stars in a footnote. </p><p><br /></p><p>Overall, this has been a very interesting discussion about what some would consider flyspecking, but that&#039;s how new hypotheses are generated and knowledge is disseminated.[/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