Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Valentinian, post: 8350475, member: 44316&quot;]Which would you prefer, in general, a plate coin from a major reference or a slightly better example? My question is prompted by this recent acquisition, which seems a tiny bit better than the Sear <i>Byzantine Coins</i> plate coin:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1481500[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1481501[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>It is Sear 1260, a Byzantine coin of Justinian II&#039;s first reign, 685-695. Apparently they never come in nice condition. Mine has a much clearer cross at 9:30 on the obverse and more lettering (..TI-NIAN). Also, on the reverse the</p><p>+</p><p>II</p><p>- </p><p>for year 2 to the right of the M is clearer. I don&#039;t claim the coin is great, but I think it is very slightly better than the Sear plate coin. It would be special to own a plate coin, and that would add to its appeal. But would it add enough to make it more desirable than an example in slightly better condition? </p><p><br /></p><p>I don&#039;t intend for you to judge these two coins in particular. Rather, I wonder how you feel in general. If, in your collecting area, you had a choice of a plate coin from a major reference work or a slightly better example with no pedigree, which would you prefer?[/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