Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Offer: Attributing of Nikopolis coins
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="Jochen1, post: 5281816, member: 103829"]I think your coin is Hristova/Hoeft/Jekov (2020) 8.18.48.2; AMNG I/1, 1513; not in Varbanov. </p><p><br /></p><p>Pick (AMNG) had 2 Ex. in hand: (1) from St. Petersburg with ANTWNINO, and (2) from trade with ANTWNIN. Both subsumed under No. 1513. He has no pictures, but I think he had the same problem as we today: Is there an O at the end or not.</p><p><br /></p><p>So the obv. legend is M AVR KAI - ANTWNIN with a last O or without. This questionable last O is smeared and fused with the rear tip of the bust. Therefore, the rev. legend can be written ANTWNIN[O], if one wants to be very precise. I had already made a note in my book, but this somewhat unclear O will certainly not lead to a new type number.</p><p><br /></p><p>The rev. legend is consistent NIKOPOLITWN PROC ICTRO. The fact that Wildwinds lists ICTRON with N at the end can be forgotten, because at this point the flan is damaged.</p><p><br /></p><p>A last word to the used reference books for Nikopolis ad Istrum: </p><p><br /></p><p>Pick's AMNG from 1898 is undoubtedly the most correct work on Nicopolis of all. The biggest problem is that Pick himself was unaware of all the new coins that became known after the fall of the Iron Curtain. For us at Hristova/Hoeft/Jekov, it is an unrivalled example. But we try, even with subsequent corrections.</p><p><br /></p><p>Varbanov is more of a catalogue than a scholarly work and full of errors, which you notice when you work with it every day, as we do.</p><p><br /></p><p>Moushmov should not really be quoted any more. His work basically consists of the reverse representations, with no regard for the obverse and often not even for the legends of the reverse. It is obsolete.</p><p><br /></p><p>Wildwinds is a nice collection of coin types for the beginner , especially of Roman provincial coins (= Greek imperial coins). The problem that Dane Kurth has, is that she is dependent on the descriptions and references of the consignors. And these often do not meet scientific standards. This also applies to dealers from whom she has posted coins. She herself cannot check all of the thousands and thousands of coins posted.</p><p><br /></p><p>Best regards[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="Jochen1, post: 5281816, member: 103829"]I think your coin is Hristova/Hoeft/Jekov (2020) 8.18.48.2; AMNG I/1, 1513; not in Varbanov. Pick (AMNG) had 2 Ex. in hand: (1) from St. Petersburg with ANTWNINO, and (2) from trade with ANTWNIN. Both subsumed under No. 1513. He has no pictures, but I think he had the same problem as we today: Is there an O at the end or not. So the obv. legend is M AVR KAI - ANTWNIN with a last O or without. This questionable last O is smeared and fused with the rear tip of the bust. Therefore, the rev. legend can be written ANTWNIN[O], if one wants to be very precise. I had already made a note in my book, but this somewhat unclear O will certainly not lead to a new type number. The rev. legend is consistent NIKOPOLITWN PROC ICTRO. The fact that Wildwinds lists ICTRON with N at the end can be forgotten, because at this point the flan is damaged. A last word to the used reference books for Nikopolis ad Istrum: Pick's AMNG from 1898 is undoubtedly the most correct work on Nicopolis of all. The biggest problem is that Pick himself was unaware of all the new coins that became known after the fall of the Iron Curtain. For us at Hristova/Hoeft/Jekov, it is an unrivalled example. But we try, even with subsequent corrections. Varbanov is more of a catalogue than a scholarly work and full of errors, which you notice when you work with it every day, as we do. Moushmov should not really be quoted any more. His work basically consists of the reverse representations, with no regard for the obverse and often not even for the legends of the reverse. It is obsolete. Wildwinds is a nice collection of coin types for the beginner , especially of Roman provincial coins (= Greek imperial coins). The problem that Dane Kurth has, is that she is dependent on the descriptions and references of the consignors. And these often do not meet scientific standards. This also applies to dealers from whom she has posted coins. She herself cannot check all of the thousands and thousands of coins posted. Best regards[/QUOTE]
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
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Offer: Attributing of Nikopolis coins
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...