Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;brassnautilus, post: 2130097, member: 74300&quot;]if I may add, for 31mm dia, that coin couldn&#039;t had been very thick, and images on both sides are still intact. Worn, but nothing missing. </p><p><br /></p><p>Ksigsteve. </p><p>cistophoric tetradrachms were originally minted in pergamon, mysia. They were light (12-13gr when normal tets were around 17gr) but had consistent weight, and were popular.</p><p><img src="http://www.coinarchives.com/0d380e2edbd25b73050c5cd544925978/img/roma/e17/image00286.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Some point in time, they figured it would be a good idea to restrike cistophoric tets instead of melting them down to produce new ones, since the later approach would had yielded less coins (each cistophoric did not yield the amount of silver for a new coin). So you get coins like these, with stacked images.</p><p><img src="http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/hadrian/RIC_0503-r.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> </p><p>Then, someone figured it would be ok to do with other light coins, ie.mark anthony&#039;s... This had nothing to do with the original cistophoric tetradrachm, other than the fact it&#039;s restruck on an underweight coin.</p><p><img src="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10618/GI_044a_img.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" />[/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