Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 8071225, member: 19463&quot;]#7.&nbsp; I am not a specialist and know little about this type but I need convincing beyond what was given.&nbsp; A and H are somewhat fluid in this period possibly because the Greek speaking East thought of H as a vowel &#039;eta&#039; and &#039;Eraklea&#039; was often, and uniquely, followed by the T for the region Thracea. What about this coin requires us to read it as an error for SMA(N)TB rather than the Bruun reading SMHTB.&nbsp; Either answer requires acceptance of an error but the frequent confusion of A and H in the region seems easier to overlook than the additional T or omitted N (on various coins Antioch used both A and ANT but not AT).&nbsp; To accept the coin as Antioch we at the very least need to address whether the style of the coin tends toward one mint or the other.&nbsp; That was not mentioned in the post. Should it be?&nbsp; Do you have an Antioch mint coin of the series that is inscribed with one of the standard Antioch mint signatures?&nbsp; Is this reassignment from the Bruun by Bastien fully explained in his work?&nbsp; I have not seen it and would not understand it for lack of background in the series or the language.[/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