Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 2731740, member: 19463&quot;]I have two,too, but for different reasons.&nbsp; The first is a particularly graphic example of the Stannard scoop weight adjustment which we have discussed here several times and I buy whenever they turn up at damaged good prices rather than extra cost educational options.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]621337[/ATTACH] </p><p>The second is a more standard looking coin but probably could be improved by cleaning.&nbsp; It has a clear strike of the reversed D and six dots under the chin on obverse distinguishing the dies and missing on so many of these poorly made coins.&nbsp; Building a set of all the under chin options would be hard because so many of the coins are simply missing that part of the flan.&nbsp; Despite all its faults, it is about as well centered as these get. The pair came to me in December 2013 for $127</p><p>[ATTACH=full]621338[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>As I understand the matter, EX SC coins were signs that the Senate authorized more coins for a special need than was covered by the standard moneyer issues for that year.&nbsp; Sometimes it is obvious what that purpose was because of some expensive military operation.&nbsp; I have not researched the reason for this issue.&nbsp; The type copies the 106 BC issue of the father of these two which lacks the C and LF on the reverse (often off flan) and having ROMA in place of EX SC.&nbsp; What we need here is one of you Republican specialists to step up and explain.&nbsp; What does Crawford say? I can show one of the earlier coins.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]621339[/ATTACH] </p><p>Did you notice that the earlier coin was a serrate issue while the later was not?[/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