Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;John Anthony, post: 1705896, member: 42773&quot;]First of all, I don&#039;t believe lack of detail should be a part of the criteria of Type 2. Meshorer himself gives evidence that these early bronzes circulated for many years after they were struck. One example that suggests they circulated well into the 1st-century AD is the Kadman Museum hoard, in which a group of the early bronzes, well-worn, were found alongside issues of Aretas IV, Malichus II, and Rabbel II. </p><p><br /></p><p>This example, which I posted earlier, is a bit of a problem child. It can be classified as Type 1, but it&#039;s struck on an irregular flan, although the weight is consistent with Types 1 and 1A. The engraving style is not crude at all compared to just how crude these pieces can get. So perhaps irregular flan size and incomplete devices don&#039;t necessarily exclude a coin from this type.</p><p><br /></p><p><a href="http://postimage.org/" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://postimage.org/" rel="nofollow"><img src="http://s7.postimg.org/s50xfscnv/meshorer1crescenr.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></a></p><p><br /></p><p>This one is crude to the point that the dealer called it barbarous, but in fact all of this early Nabataean coinage can be considered at least pseudo-barbarous.</p><p><br /></p><p><a href="http://postimage.org/" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://postimage.org/" rel="nofollow"><img src="http://s10.postimg.org/gqeyvnv7d/image.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></a>[/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