Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;hotwheelsearl, post: 6319425, member: 75143&quot;]Hello!</p><p><br /></p><p>A few weeks ago I was amazingly chosen by [USER=93702]@Clavdivs[/USER] and [USER=74968]@Orfew[/USER] to receive a copy of SEAR!!!</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;ve always wanted a Roman coin physical book, and am very happy and incredibly blessed to have received this at no cost from our generous benefactors.</p><p><br /></p><p>In addition to the book, Clavdivs also included a selection of 4 rather lovely coins:</p><p><br /></p><p>Constantine II Gloria Exercitus follis</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1250411[/ATTACH] </p><p>Constantine I Campgate follis</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1250413[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>Arcadius Concordia AE3</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1250414[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>Licinius I Iovi Conservatori</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1250415[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1250417[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I do have a question about how, exactly to use Sear. It appears that instead of cataloging every single variation, mintmark, field marks, etc, Sear seems to catalogue one or two examples of each major reverse type.</p><p><br /></p><p>For example, the above Constantine I has mintmark SMANTZ.</p><p>However, Sear only has a single entry on the campgate, with the SMTSA mintmark; it also mentions the RIC number attached to the example.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Would Sear be used as a general catalogue of types, rather than variations?</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1250418[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>Thanks again for all of your kindness! This book has been an extraordinarily engaging read thus far, and I am loving learning a slew of things I never knew before.[/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