Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 3686098, member: 19463&quot;]I see nothing wrong with pretty.&nbsp; This does bring up a question I often ask but rarely like my answer if I have one.&nbsp; We have many &#039;special&#039; coins and even more generic reverse types of which very few are easy too explain.&nbsp; A few might align with a historical event or a record of an illness of the Emperor (that generates a Salus or Aesculapius type).&nbsp; Today, changing a coin design requires an act of Congress but the Romans seemed to have dozens every year.&nbsp; We comment on the one that fit a propaganda message but why were there not more types with meaning?&nbsp; The entire concept of reverse types with special meaning and even multiple types at one time died along with the &#039;Fall&#039; of the Empire.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; If it were something related to the rise of Christianity, I might have expected a change of types but not the end of what seemed like a good way of communicating with the coin handling public.&nbsp; Medieval coins barely have types beyond crosses and simple figures until the Renaissance brought in large and fancy coinage. Has anyone seen anything written on the subject?&nbsp; Opinions?[/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