Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 1825988, member: 19463&quot;][ATTACH=full]300547[/ATTACH] </p><p>Considering the terrible state of the obverse legends on so many of these, the monogram reverse of the last coin is very nice to have as long as you have a chart of monograms to use for comparison.&nbsp; After someone tells you that the monogram reads LEONIS, you can convince yourself that the coin has the right letters to be a Leo.&nbsp; The CON mintmark is weak but there.&nbsp; The portrait shows an eye, ear, mouth and weak nose but you have to have a better imagination than I do to read any obverse legend.&nbsp; Still I have trouble looking at this coin and saying it is high grade. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> </p><p>[ATTACH=full]300548[/ATTACH] </p><p>My other Leo with the monogram reverse has no mintmark but can be attributed to CONstantinople by the variety from that mint substituting a Greek lambda for the Latin L in Leo on the obverse.&nbsp; The coin shows a natural hole sloping through the flan (dirt filled) and two casting sprues showing these little flans were cast in a group.&nbsp; I considered this coin very fortunate to have the lambda so clear and the hole placed so as not to ruin either the portrait or the monogram.&nbsp; I really would like to have had the CON mintmark.&nbsp; This coin at 1.2g weighs twice the other coin.&nbsp; I have not heard any suggestion that there were more than the one denomination on these.&nbsp; I went through a phase in 1998 where I was buying 5th century common coins but never could bring myself to pay the prices asked for the rarities that tend to be much uglier than these two beauties.[/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