Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 2815833, member: 19463&quot;]I see nothing particularly odd about the coin.&nbsp; Emesa did not see anything wrong with using female types for male rulers and vice-versa.&nbsp;&nbsp; Mainstream scholars of the last century decreed that Rome mint rules must be followed at Eastern mints or the coins must be classified/ignored as barbarous.&nbsp; They were wrong. </p><p>[ATTACH=full]659982[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]659983[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>Alexandria did it, too.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]659986[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>Whether these were accidents or on purpose will be hard to prove.&nbsp; There are many rare variations from these mint so the fact that we don&#039;t have a lot of them does not prove anything.&nbsp; Can you show a Domna obverse that die links to any of these reverses?&nbsp; That I would like to see. </p><p><br /></p><p>Obviously my interest in this subject is more in the Domna coins with male reverses (mostly military).&nbsp; Even coins with COS dates on the reverse are not mules, IMO, unless you can prove that the mint saw anything odd about pairing reverses as was convenient when necessary.&nbsp; Mules are accidental.&nbsp; There are too many of these to be accidental. </p><p>[ATTACH=full]659990[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]659991[/ATTACH][/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