Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Nemo, post: 2485920, member: 58462&quot;]Here are examples of defaced vs damnatio from my collection.</p><p><br /></p><p>What were they protesting by defacing this coin?&nbsp; There are other similar defaced examples of this type out there.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]525283[/ATTACH]</p><p><b>Mysia, Pergamum. Pseudo-autonomous issue. Defaced.</b></p><p>MYSIA, Pergamum. Pseudo-autonomous issue. Circa AD 40-60. Æ 20mm, 3.4g </p><p>O: Turreted and draped bust of Roma right; ΘЄAN PΩMHN. </p><p>R: Draped bust of Senate right; ΘЄΩΝ ϹVNKΛHTON</p><p>- RPC I 2374; SNG France 1964-71.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>And my Nero damnatio:</p><p>[ATTACH=full]525282[/ATTACH]</p><p><b>Nero Damnatio</b></p><p>MACEDON, Thessalonica. Nero. AD 54-68. Æ 21mm 8.4 g. </p><p><br /></p><p>O: Bare head left; ΘEC in rectangular punch across - Howgego 537; face erased by second stamp; third countermark on neck?</p><p><br /></p><p>R: Legend in three lines, eagle standing left above; all within oak wreath. - RPC 1603</p><p><br /></p><p>Howgego notes that the ΘEC countermark was probably applied in A.D. 68/69, validating the coin as still being legal tender. He also notes that the application of the countermark was not directly connected with the erasure of Nero&#039;s face.</p><p><br /></p><p>For a second example see <a href="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-14314" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-14314" rel="nofollow">http://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-14314</a>[/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