Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Victor_Clark, post: 6588442, member: 10613&quot;]Theoretically, a smaller weight and size would/could make it RIC VII. If this issue was affected by the coin reform of 313, the pearl ring diameter should have changed from 21 to 19mm. A lot of guess work involved with this -- can you see the PRD; if not, there are always smaller/ bigger coins in all issues; when did the coin reform start-- immediately when Maximinus II coins stopped being struck for him...and more. In RIC VII Bruun said &quot;The mintmark SMHT/A in right remained the same all through and was continued after Daza&#039;s withdrawal with exactly the same reverse as before the occupation. The exclusion of Daza and a slight change of the break of the reverse legend are the only indications of anything new.&quot; Except RIC VI gives the reverse break as S-E (or R-V) which is exactly the same as RIC VII&#039;s break of S-E. This is not the only coin that crosses the RIC volume barrier and I typically reference these coins like this-- RIC VI Heraclea 73/ VII 6.[/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