Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Severus Alexander, post: 8236586, member: 84744&quot;]Very interesting, thank you!!&nbsp; <a href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=8419290" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=8419290" rel="nofollow">Here&#039;s another example</a> with a clearer legend:</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1449114[/ATTACH] </p><p>Even with my poor grasp of Arabic script, I can see that &quot;fals Antak&quot; isn&#039;t a very plausible reading.&nbsp; As far as I can tell, the fault lies with the reference the auction house cites, &quot;CCS&quot;, which is Malloy et al.&#039;s <i>Coins of the Crusader States - </i>though I don&#039;t have a copy so I can&#039;t check.&nbsp; As you intimate, the coin doesn&#039;t even seem likely to be an Antioch product, certainly not if it imitates Muhammad I.&nbsp; (I see the hexagram design also occurs for <a href="https://www.zeno.ru/showgallery.php?cat=9230" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.zeno.ru/showgallery.php?cat=9230" rel="nofollow">Qala&#039;un</a>, 678-689 AH, though the legend doesn&#039;t seem to match.)</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;ve also found the original Wäckerlin collection coin that I thought my example corrected the legend for.&nbsp; <a href="https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=156542" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=156542" rel="nofollow">Here</a> it is:</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1449115[/ATTACH] </p><p>Mine again:</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1449116[/ATTACH] </p><p>I don&#039;t think it&#039;s the same legend on either side... so mine is perhaps a new type?[/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