Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;DonnaML, post: 5136810, member: 110350&quot;]I just found my new coin in Dinsdale, listed as No. 005120. See Dinsdale, Paul H., <i>The Imperial Coinage of the Middle Antonines: Marcus Aurelius with Lucius Verus and Commodus</i>, Ch. 4, <i>Faustina II - Undated, 158-176</i>&nbsp; (<a href="http://romanpaulus.x10host.com/Marcus/04%20-%20Faustina%20II%20-%20Undated,%20158-176%20%28med_res%29.pdf" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://romanpaulus.x10host.com/Marcus/04%20-%20Faustina%20II%20-%20Undated,%20158-176%20%28med_res%29.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://romanpaulus.x10host.com/Marcus/04 - Faustina II - Undated, 158-176 (med_res).pdf</a>) at p. 54; photo at p. 60. Dinsdale doesn&#039;t appear to address the issue of the identity of the four children, but does date the coin prior to 161 AD, specifically in 160. See id. at p. 50 n. 3.</p><p><br /></p><p>Regarding the issue of whether the title &quot;Augusta&quot; appeared on Faustina II&#039;s coin, without mention of her filiation, prior to the death of her father, Dinsdale states:</p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;It has been conventional numismatic practice to date to the reign of Antoninus those issues of Faustina which refer to her as his daughter (PII AVG FIL etc.), and those which omit the filiation (FAVSTINA AVGVSTA only) to the reign of Marcus,</p><p>but there is no reason why the former could not have continued, at least briefly, into the reign of Marcus, <b>or the latter commenced under Antoninus</b>. Strack argued that the FAVSTINA AVGVSTA issues with descriptive reverses actually</p><p>commenced in 158, a judgement confirmed by MIR. The specific types identified by Strack for this early commencement are marked by the inclusion of references to his catalogue.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>Id. at p. 50 (emphasis added).[/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