Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Lobokai, post: 3971267, member: 109487&quot;]I in no way am contending that mine’s not a copy... weight alone seems enough... but some of the other reasons seem a little off. In archeological digs, especially if there was erosion, heat, or other environmental concerns, I’ve found holistically that soft details on metal items are common. Especially in Roman era and older digs (where I’ve done most my work).&nbsp; Circulation is not the only source of wear as many items I’ve found were more weathered than worn. </p><p><br /></p><p>also, if it is an attempt at a direct copy (not a general approximation) I feel like we may not be understanding how many different castings there were of tets.&nbsp; Local variations are endless, diameter varies greatly, and edges were often hammered in some regions. So to point to detail variance is not a compelling reason. For example, here is a verified coin, it’s details line up much more closely to my copy. </p><p><br /></p><p>Paphos minted coins, for example, were contemporary copies and could vary down to lower weights. Morkholms guide has diameters and weights in the 3rd century that were all over the place.[/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