Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;John Anderson, post: 2804481, member: 88754&quot;]Hi Julius,</p><p>Thank you for your comments on the Pertinax article, which was written for the Celator several years ago.</p><p>I had the privilege of examining the Paris specimen at the BNF and could find no evidence of casting or tooling.&nbsp; The curator, who I met with, agreed that their example is most likely genuine and a die match to mine.&nbsp; The obverse die matches that of the equally rare DIS CVSTODIBVS reverse, which I have also examined in person, thanks to Richard Abdy at the British Museum.&nbsp; The only other example of RIC 16 I have been able to locate was lot 577 of the Karl Kress auction of July 5, 1971.&nbsp; (I was able to purchase this catalogue a few years ago.)&nbsp; </p><p>It is surprising that the Paris specimen was judged to be a forgery without a more thorough examination by other experts.&nbsp; Mattingly did not provide any support for his claim that &quot;the type is probably not ancient at all&quot; on page 1xvi of the Introduction to Vol. V of <i>Coins of the Roman Empire in the BM</i>.&nbsp; I do not understand why Woodward did not make an effort to examine the coin himself when he added his footnote on page 93 of his &quot;The Coinage of Pertinax&quot; in the Numismatic Chronicle of 1957.&nbsp; </p><p>When dealing with ancient coins one must bear in mind that condemning a genuine coin can do more harm to the scholarship than overlooking a possible forgery, which in time, will be discovered for what it is.&nbsp; </p><p>&quot;Truth is the daughter of time, not of authority&quot; - Francis Bacon</p><p><br /></p><p>John Anderson</p><p>Praefectus Coins[/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