Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="lrbguy, post: 2831422, member: 88829"]Sorry for the delay, but Sundays are always busy for me. This is certainly true at Rome, but is there evidence of this distinction being observed anywhere else?  We need to recall, by the way, that the distinction is associated by Kent with a difference in module, not per se by the reverse type.  Of course, the correlation of the hut type with the "reduced AE2" module makes it easy to conflate the two.  For precision in examining this case, let us not do that here, unless we can be sure that the hut type always and everywhere occurs on a reduced AE2 module. Do you have the module measurements for the OP coin yet? In that regard, it would be wise for us to get the measurements of the coins with the "N" field marks from Rome to help nail down our comparisons.  Should we expect them to be reduced module AE2 for hut type [yes], and is the corresponding "A" variety always a larger module AE2 by comparison [should be]?[/QUOTE]