Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;curtislclay, post: 2832504, member: 89514&quot;]Zumbly is correct with RIC 65 in my opinion; TR P VIII dot not TR P VIIII. That coin is in BM (BMC 112), and there were 19 specimens in the Reka Devnia hoard.</p><p><br /></p><p>It seems doubtful that this Providentia standing type continued from TR P VII and VIII into TR P VIIII, despite descriptions by Cohen of such denarii both without and with P M.</p><p><br /></p><p>Without P M: Cohen 934 (citing a private collection, Asselin) = RIC 85. Not in BM (p. 712), none in Reka Devnia. Seaby, Roman Silver Coins 934, suggests that this might just be a misdescription of the Pax standing type with shield at her feet, Cohen 940 = RIC 86 = BMC 134, pl. 94.13. Or it could be the Aequitas standing type with globe at her feet, BMC 133, pl. 94.12.</p><p><br /></p><p>With P M: Cohen 444 (allegedly in Paris) = RIC 78. Again not in BM (p. 710), and none in Reka Devnia. Though Seaby accepts this coin (RSC 444), his suggestion of a misdescribed Pax standing type could well be right here too. That Pax type definitely exists: BMC 125-6, pl. 94.6. Or again it could be the Aequitas standing type misdescribed, BMC 121, pl. 94.5. It wouldn&#039;t be hard to check the coin Cohen was describing in Paris.[/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