Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;AnYangMan, post: 3139601, member: 87271&quot;]No, of course I do not. Who would approve of such rare and beautiful coins? <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie8" alt=":D" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>In all seriousness, they are a fantastic bunch of coins. If you hadn’t bought that hollow-handle, I would eventually have caved in and bought it myself. While checking out everything for you in hand, I somewhat regretted letting you have that spade and the jin ant-nose. But we divided everything fairly and it’s not like I didn’t get anything....</p><p><br /></p><p>Just a small note: Yes, the <i>Wu</i> 五broad pointed knife is not listed in Hartill. But Hartill only list an incredibly small percentage of the different inscriptions and shapes (“a selection is illustrated”) that other catalogues do. Coole, Thierry and several Chinese catalogues all list this inscription, some arguing it is part of a larger series, all inscribed with different numerals (<i>Liu </i>六being the most common, but numbers up to at least 12 are known). But what do you think about this piece in hand? When I handled it, the first thing I noticed was the extremely low-relief of the character. And what about the patina? Not saying it is fake, just curious. As you know, I wasn’t very comfortable with it in hand.</p><p><br /></p><p>Even though I am not a big <i>Wang Mang</i> fan, I like the pieces you’ve bought! At first I also thought that the iron <i>Huobu </i>might have been a charm, but look at the legs; the broken-off remains of two other spades can be seen. This means that it was likely found stacked, which definitely argues against a charm-like purpose in my opinion. Iron <i>Huobu’s </i>are known, but these date from the much later five dynasties/ten-kingdoms period. More importantly, they also differ quite a bit in terms of workmanship and style; much more crudely cast and with the legs further apart than the original <i>Wang</i> <i>Mang </i>prototype. This intriguing specimen is much closer to the original H<i>uobu’s. </i>I am positive it is from the Wang collection (it shows up on the rubbings that still exist), but perhaps some additional info is recorded in the notes that came with the collection? Did you ask our mutual friend about this?</p><p><br /></p><p>And what is your opinion on the <i>Yong</i> Ant-nose? It is a highly debated type, and it differs quite significantly in fabric from all other ant-nose types. What do you think about the weird ‘rim’ it has on the reverse? I have documented 6 specimens (assuming yours isn’t the same as the one in the Fisher collection), including the one in my personal collection and another specimen present in a collection in China. All do seem to have been part of the same hoard (or from the same forger’s workshop <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />)</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Great idea! [USER=78244]@TypeCoin971793[/USER], if you need any help, you know where to find me!</p><p><br /></p><p>By the way, sorry everyone for the long absence here on the forum. I’ve been incredibly busy the previous year with studying and the excavation at the end of the school year. I have been lurking, but my last post dates from February this year. Now that summer is here, let’s change that!</p><p><br /></p><p>Kind regards,</p><p><br /></p><p>Mika[/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