Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;curtislclay, post: 7629464, member: 89514&quot;][USER=19463]@dougsmit[/USER]</p><p><br /></p><p>Doug,</p><p><br /></p><p>I overlooked &quot;modern forgery&quot; in the French text, but think that declaration is pretty much worthless.</p><p><br /></p><p>Doubtless the author was just following Giard&#039;s condemnation of this coin, without reasons or explanation, in the third volume of his Paris catalogue. But Giard apparently had a poor eye for forgeries. Most of his 44 numbered &quot;modern forgeries&quot; in that volume are, in my opinion, perfectly authentic ancient coins. They include, for example, two sestertii of Galba, nos. 2 and 4, which are not only from known authentic dies, but were accepted as ancient by the highly competent Oxford numismatist Colin Kraay, who included them in his published die catalogue of the sestertii of Galba.</p><p>Edit: Actually there are reasons for suspecting that Galba sestertius no. 2 might be a cast of a struck original, and Kraay did <i>not</i> include this specimen in his die catalogue, no. 379.[/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