Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="red_spork, post: 2460298, member: 74282"][USER=78411]@Nicholas Molinari[/USER]  Thanks VERY VERY much. Both CNS and HGC reference Bahrfeldt it looks like so I'll have to track down a copy. I was assuming, probably incorrectly, that the right-most bar being half the height of the "A" was an "AL" monogram and full-height was AV or AN, as it would generally be read on many Republican coins of the period(i.e. <a href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1589531" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1589531" rel="nofollow">VAL</a> versus <a href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1102456" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1102456" rel="nofollow">AV or AN</a>). The HGC page above seems to just list AV so I assume this is just a variation by the engraver. It seems to me that it's most likely a case of there not being enough evidence to firmly place these issues in Panormus, as that is the reason that Crawford, for instance, also placed several issues at "uncertain" mints, but I still don't know where the new dating comes from. As for where to place these in catalogs, for me, I have a specific "Roman Republic Provincial" category that I use for issues like this that aren't mainline issues but seem to have been struck under Roman authority.[/QUOTE]