Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 8239332, member: 19463&quot;]Compare RIC volume VI page 224 # 825 and RIC volume VII page 182 # 210 and the notes on both pages.&nbsp; Mention is made in both places of disagreement as to what to do with these coins.&nbsp; They are outside my area of interest so I have not kept up with current thinking.&nbsp; Perhaps one of our late Roman specialists will clear it up for us???&nbsp; One big question is whether we view something with four times the silver to be different than something only 1% silver or if both are just &#039;AE&#039;.&nbsp; I have not had mine tested but the metal reminds me of&nbsp; low grade billon.&nbsp; I really know nothing of note.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1450022[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>Below is my example of RIC volume VI page 224 # 826 listed as the same issue for Maximinus II.&nbsp; Mine appears to be a bit better in terms of silver content but I have no idea what was the intent at the mint or how much time elapsed between the production of these coins. </p><p>[ATTACH=full]1450024[/ATTACH] </p><p>Collectors/dealers/scholars too often hang names on coins (Pseudo included) without really knowing the intent of the mint on the date of production.&nbsp; Were all these coins once the same and the differences we see now the result of weathering?&nbsp; Was there a period spanning the issue during which the coin intended to be the argentius lost so much of its silver that it no longer was issued?&nbsp; This, IMO, demonstrates the dangers of reading one expert and accepting his word as gospel.&nbsp; Footnotes made it clear that Dr. Sutherland and Dr. Bruun did not read the evidence in the same exact way.&nbsp; If I were quessing, I would expect to find that there was a steady decline in metal until it became obvious that it was time to stop issuing the argentius as a separate piece.&nbsp; That is just a guess but I have not read any explanations from the scholars that clarify either the &#039;truth&#039; or the reasoning behind their opinions. I assume someone must have published more on this since RIC in 1966-67.&nbsp; That may just be an assumption.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>I agree with the guess and that includes the &#039;Hmm&#039;. </p><p><br /></p><p>Another opinion:&nbsp; This sort of thing demonstrates a reason to read the text and footnotes in books like RIC rather than just farming them for catalog numbers.&nbsp; I am no scholar.&nbsp; I have no access to the materials available to the good doctors who wrote these references and disagreed with each other on a few minor points.&nbsp; In the specialties that do interest me more, I am more aware of such questions and more bothered by them.&nbsp; I rather assume (right or wrong) that there are similar questions less than fully resolved on most other areas of ancient coinage.&nbsp; One can only wonder what progress might be made in our understanding of these things in the next couple centuries or will, by then, the only appreciation of these items be that they are shiny?[/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