Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
RIC listing ancient counterfeits? Part II
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="Nicholas Molinari, post: 3212005, member: 78411"]The study certainly seems promising enough based on my limited knowledge of Roman imperial coinage, but you’d have to expand it. In other words, I wouldn’t want to just take the discussion post and put it in house style now that it has already been presented online. If in its final published form you think it would look quite different and contain extensive notes, etc., then I think it has a very good shot. I would check to see if anyone else has published articles about imitations and hybrids during this time period (check the various journals). Also, maybe dress it up with some general talk about imitations in relation to official varieties, etc., and possibly some background about the time period, too—why are such pieces significant? Ultimately, if there are areas of the study that could be strengthened—perhaps also through a more extensive study of additional specimens—then I think it is a great idea. I’d recommend contacting Victor Clark or Shawn Caza (otlichnik at Forvm) to get some pointers if it is something you want to do. It is a lot of work but also a lot of fun (at least I think so).[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="Nicholas Molinari, post: 3212005, member: 78411"]The study certainly seems promising enough based on my limited knowledge of Roman imperial coinage, but you’d have to expand it. In other words, I wouldn’t want to just take the discussion post and put it in house style now that it has already been presented online. If in its final published form you think it would look quite different and contain extensive notes, etc., then I think it has a very good shot. I would check to see if anyone else has published articles about imitations and hybrids during this time period (check the various journals). Also, maybe dress it up with some general talk about imitations in relation to official varieties, etc., and possibly some background about the time period, too—why are such pieces significant? Ultimately, if there are areas of the study that could be strengthened—perhaps also through a more extensive study of additional specimens—then I think it is a great idea. I’d recommend contacting Victor Clark or Shawn Caza (otlichnik at Forvm) to get some pointers if it is something you want to do. It is a lot of work but also a lot of fun (at least I think so).[/QUOTE]
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
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
RIC listing ancient counterfeits? Part II
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...