Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;cmezner, post: 3808760, member: 87809&quot;]According to members of the German numismatic forum, the incuse on the reverse can help to support a date, but it is not to be considered definitive. A quadripartite incuse could as well be dated to ca. 550 - 500 BC, based on the dating of diobols from Phokaia. However, this seems to be subjective.<img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie5" alt=":confused:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>A punch mark (not quadripartite) like on the following type, is according to this, older than a quadripartite incuse</p><p><br /></p><p>EL Hemihekte, Plain Globular Type, an example of the very earliest form of coinage</p><p><br /></p><p>uncertain Ionian mint, ca. 650 - 600 BC, period of the Artemis Find </p><p>7.7 mm, 1.167 g</p><p>Ref.: SNG Kayhan 676; SNG Von Aulock 7763; Rosen 324; Boston MFA 1750; </p><p><br /></p><p>Ob.: smooth plain globular surface</p><p>Rev.: incuse roughly square pyramidal punch;</p><p style="text-align: center">[ATTACH=full]1015981[/ATTACH]</p><p>[/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