Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;red_spork, post: 4640411, member: 74282&quot;]Most missing ones are control-marked. Schaefer has for many years been involved in Roman Republican Numismatics research, both actively and more passively providing scans of various issues for other researchers. I believe at least a few missing pages are due to current research into those issues with unpublished information on those pages. For instance, on <a href="http://numismatics.org/archives/ark:/53695/schaefer.rrdp.b07#schaefer_422_b07_p148" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://numismatics.org/archives/ark:/53695/schaefer.rrdp.b07#schaefer_422_b07_p148" rel="nofollow">Binder #7 page 148</a>, you&#039;ll find a section at the bottom discussing hybrids:</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1146815[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>This section tracked hybrids with obverses of Crawford 422/1a and reverses of 422/1a - a variety that Crawford rejected because the examples known to him were all plated(see two rightmost coins). When I submitted my example to Richard, he responded to me mentioning that he&#039;d been tracking this variety for quite some time, and had a few other examples from sales that he believed were not plated but could not verify. My example was the first one that was actually traceable and which he could get more data on, so he asked me to do a specific gravity test. The result showed that my coin was solid silver, and not a fouree(and thus, it is likely that these other good weight &amp; good apperance examples also were), and this tiny section of RRDP became the seed for a paper rehabilitating this variety.</p><p><br /></p><p>I bet all of the pages will be published in due time.[/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