Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Septimius September!
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="dougsmit, post: 7897035, member: 19463"]maridvnvm's VICTOR IVST AVS coin really upsets the traditional dating scheme for these. It is a reverse die match with my coin below which uses the so called 'first legend' ending in AVG and traditionally dated to 193 since it has no mention of the second Consulship SS held in 194. It is possible that this (very long lived) die was in use on New Year's day 194 and bridged the gap making IIC very early in the 194 group. However, it is also possible and more likely IMO that all this means is that this mint used these dies randomly assorting whatever was available on any given day so to sequence them we will have to consider things like die wear/deterioration. The problem comes when we see his coin having the most advanced state of the V cud used with a reverse previously believed to be earlier. There is also the matter that we have a very high number of different reverses used with the same obverse (at least a dozen in one case). This fuels my belief that this mint secured separately obverse and reverse dies each day and made no effort to combine them in the same way the next morning. We don't know much beyond the fact that the traditional (BMC/RIC) system is flawed beyond repair.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1363636[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>While I was considering showing the last coin above sometime this month, it comes as a bonus here for a different reason. It ranks as one of my favorite coins because it is a die duplicate of the British Museum coin that defines BMC 338 but is listed with reverse ending AVG due to their assuming incorrectly given their coin which has a small flan and loses that letter. We all know to assume invites danger. The question I have then is whether BMC 338 is what they show in the text or on the plate. There are other dies (see below) that actually do read AVG so they do match the text for BMC 338. The coin above came to me from the Bickford-Smith collection so I am doubly happy to have it. Rodger knew of the error. His death set back the study of these coins considerably. </p><p>[ATTACH=full]1363637[/ATTACH] Thanks to maridvnvm for giving me the excuse to use these last coins as day 20 supplementary posts making room for something else at the end of the month. Both maridvnvm and I could be classified as a tad obsessive when it comes to Septimius. He has more than I do so that makes me the less obsessive of us. Right?[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="dougsmit, post: 7897035, member: 19463"]maridvnvm's VICTOR IVST AVS coin really upsets the traditional dating scheme for these. It is a reverse die match with my coin below which uses the so called 'first legend' ending in AVG and traditionally dated to 193 since it has no mention of the second Consulship SS held in 194. It is possible that this (very long lived) die was in use on New Year's day 194 and bridged the gap making IIC very early in the 194 group. However, it is also possible and more likely IMO that all this means is that this mint used these dies randomly assorting whatever was available on any given day so to sequence them we will have to consider things like die wear/deterioration. The problem comes when we see his coin having the most advanced state of the V cud used with a reverse previously believed to be earlier. There is also the matter that we have a very high number of different reverses used with the same obverse (at least a dozen in one case). This fuels my belief that this mint secured separately obverse and reverse dies each day and made no effort to combine them in the same way the next morning. We don't know much beyond the fact that the traditional (BMC/RIC) system is flawed beyond repair. [ATTACH=full]1363636[/ATTACH] While I was considering showing the last coin above sometime this month, it comes as a bonus here for a different reason. It ranks as one of my favorite coins because it is a die duplicate of the British Museum coin that defines BMC 338 but is listed with reverse ending AVG due to their assuming incorrectly given their coin which has a small flan and loses that letter. We all know to assume invites danger. The question I have then is whether BMC 338 is what they show in the text or on the plate. There are other dies (see below) that actually do read AVG so they do match the text for BMC 338. The coin above came to me from the Bickford-Smith collection so I am doubly happy to have it. Rodger knew of the error. His death set back the study of these coins considerably. [ATTACH=full]1363637[/ATTACH] Thanks to maridvnvm for giving me the excuse to use these last coins as day 20 supplementary posts making room for something else at the end of the month. Both maridvnvm and I could be classified as a tad obsessive when it comes to Septimius. He has more than I do so that makes me the less obsessive of us. Right?[/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
>
Septimius September!
>
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...