Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 2326977, member: 19463&quot;]I see the continuation of the Alexander types as a statement in two parts:</p><p>1. This coin is good value just like the coins of the good old days were.</p><p>2. The ruler listed on this coin is the legitimate successor of Alexander in these parts and you should support him.</p><p><br /></p><p>Changing the face might be a political statement and might be a style progression based on the then current idea of what a ruler should look like.&nbsp; Stronger rulers changed to their own portraits quickly.&nbsp; Others might be expected to emulate Alexander longer.&nbsp; Many of the posthumous coins were from cities with some claim to autonomous status.&nbsp; These issued coins of the Alexander style longer than places like Egypt where the face of Ptolemy was quickly on distinct coinage. </p><p><br /></p><p>Lysimakos drachm&nbsp; 323-281 BC </p><p>[ATTACH=full]471192[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>Seleukos II 230-225 BC tetradrachm Susa</p><p>[ATTACH=full]471193[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>Both of these rulers also issued coins with &#039;new&#039; types.&nbsp; We might want to avoid reading too much meaning into all this.&nbsp; I believe the most important factor of coin type is to make the economy feel secure about the soundness of the money.&nbsp; Retaining types of the good old days has always been used for this purpose. </p><p><br /></p><p>Lets mention that people who only want to collect coins of nice guys with high minded ideals may want to avoid this period.&nbsp; Some of these people made the evil Romans you love to hate look a bit amateurish.[/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