Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;curtislclay, post: 4704334, member: 89514&quot;]Nicholas,</p><p><br /></p><p>My first explanation of the adjustment of the year dates in 211, along with pictures of a lot of relevant coins: Berk 166, Oct. 2009, especially lot 555; Berk 167, Dec. 2009, especially lot 429. Note also lots 563-4 in Berk 166: a tridrachm and a drachm of Caracalla dated ET IΔ, attributable to 211 not 206 because of the bearded portrait of the emperor. Above I only mentioned coins of Geta and Domna with the reduced year dates in 211; these coins of Caracalla complete the set.</p><p><br /></p><p>This was a discovery I made on my own, no great shakes in view of the large Caesarean hoard with many new types and dates that I had to work with, but I later learned that I was not the first: the same observation had earlier been made by William Metcalf, presumably in his article &quot;Notes on the Severan Coinage of Caesarea&quot;, in Nomismata 1, a volume of conference papers on Roman provincials, Milan 1997, the conference having taken place in Munich in April 1994.</p><p><br /></p><p>Doug,</p><p><br /></p><p>The earliest late portraits of Domna at Caesarea (small, low nest of hair behind) illustrated in those two Berk catalogues: Berk 166, lots 555-6 (Years IΔ and Γ = 211) and Berk 167, lot 429 (same date). Those three coins are tridrachms. My four drachms of Domna with the same double date all also have the late portrait. The early portrait with large bun, however, still occurs on my slightly earlier drachm of Domna dated Year 19, and also as expected on my three earlier drachms and one tridrachm of Domna dated Years 6, 13, 16 , and 18.[/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