Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 2604884, member: 19463&quot;]While my top ten of 2016 included my Fonteius which was purchased exactly for the reasons you covered, I believe my most research provoking coins are errors and overstrikes.&nbsp; Sometimes the answer of what was going on on that coin is obvious; sometimes there is quite a bit of blankly staring before enlightenment comes.&nbsp; In 2016, the leader was my Anonymous Byzantine follis overstruck on a Gordian III as after nearly 800 years of being in the original form.&nbsp; Most recently was my barbarous Decentius falling horseman.&nbsp; Those have been covered recently here so I won&#039;t repeat them now.&nbsp; Of all my technically interesting coins, the most significant is this AE3 of Constantine I which proves that what we call clashed dies are certainly die damage rather than restruck brockages as too many people once believed.&nbsp; </p><p>[ATTACH=full]569174[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>The reverse die was damaged when the dies were struck together without a blank between them.&nbsp; The result was reversed intention of the obverse design.&nbsp; The coin was double struck and both strikes transferred the incuse from the clash offset from each other by the same amount as are the two strikes from the double strike as best seen on the obverse behind the head. I like this coin because it diagnoses a common error for those willing to look at the evidence.[/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