Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Carausius, post: 2770110, member: 76440&quot;]BM is simply describing their coins in accordance with Crawford, which is the current RR standard catalogue. Don&#039;t assume any independent thought by the BM in using that description.&nbsp; Crawford went against longstanding tradition in calling the disputed device a punch die.&nbsp; Before Crawford, the standard RR catalogue was Sydenham. Sydenham called the device &quot;cap of Vulcan, laureate&quot; (See Syd. #982).&nbsp; Before Sydenham, the standard RR catalogue was the British Museum Catalogue by Grueber.&nbsp; Grueber called the device &quot;cap of Vulcan (pileus), laureate&quot; (See BMCRR vol 1, 4056).&nbsp; Barfeldt has been previously mentioned.&nbsp; So, there are plenty of scholars besides the blogger and me <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie84" alt=":smug:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> who think it&#039;s a cap of Vulcan.</p><p><br /></p><p>Incidentally, that Cordius Rufus denarius with the banded cap was minted circa 46BC, same year as the Carisius that we&#039;re discussing.</p><p><br /></p><p>Edit: I will add one more scholar of the past who appears to be in your corner (if my junior high school French serves me well) - Babelon identifies it as a die, I think.[/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