Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Heliodromus, post: 7989978, member: 120820&quot;]Well, I&#039;m 95% convinced. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>On the basis of keep-it-simple, a known type of orthographic error is much preferable to a novel and unexpected reading.</p><p><br /></p><p>My remaining doubt is based on the apparent sequence of legends (emissions?) we see on this type, and well the transitional nature of the types and legends as a whole. There seems to be a whole bunch of second guessing about reverse types and legends going on here, which seems to make it more possible that something unusual could be intentional than it might otherwise be.</p><p><br /></p><p>Whatever the explanation, error (likely) or officially intended (unlikely), it seems to have come to an extremely abrupt end, being limited to the first emission of the short-lived type. The also-unexpected &quot;CS&quot; abbreviation continues from &quot;NOV CS&quot; into &quot;N CS&quot; and &quot;NOB CS&quot;, before being eliminated in the final emission where the legend appears to have been deliberately reconsidered and lengthened (CONST vs CO, VAL vs VA, as well as NOB CAES vs NOB CS). However the &quot;NOV&quot; seems to been limited to a single emission only, presumably the first, and is then never seen again. Maybe the greek engravers were fired or read the riot act, because they did not make that mistake again!</p><p><br /></p><p>Of course the CONST(ANTINVS) for Licinius II, also seen at Alexandria (above) is also unexpected and transitional, as is the use of &quot;FL VA&quot; vs &quot;FL IVL&quot; for Crispus.[/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