Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;IdesOfMarch01, post: 4596759, member: 39084&quot;]So I took out my copy of RIC Volume I (Revised Edition) and reread your original post a few times while looking at the referenced pages.</p><p><br /></p><p>RIC clearly states that during Claudius&#039;s reign &quot;...it is to be accepted that Rome now continued the gold and silver output established there by Gaius...&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>Suppose that, at some point years ago, this coin type was offered for sale somewhere (auction or dealer) and its attribution was wrong -- it stated Lugdunum as the mint rather than Rome.&nbsp; Then, as this coin and similar types were offered by other dealers and auctions, they simply copied the misattribution (not unlikely, inasmuch as most people wouldn&#039;t want to recreate the attribution from scratch) and the mistake propagated so that ACSEARCH turns up the coins with this misattribution.&nbsp; This would explain the apparent discrepancy, since whether the obverse legend includes or doesn&#039;t include IIII becomes irrelevant in this scenario.</p><p><br /></p><p>For the few coins that I&#039;ve acquired that have been misattributed, I&#039;ve noticed that their previous sales (to the extent that I could find them) were also misattributed.&nbsp; Thus I think this is the most likely explanation.[/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