Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Nefarius Purpus, post: 10353399, member: 116505&quot;]The prevailing view has been these coins are 1700s fakes. The most recent published account was by Bursche (see refernces in paper) and my understanding from corresponding with leading specialists on &#039;barbarous&#039; gold from early on while doing this research is that this remains the prevailing view, and also that they are unlike other &#039;barbarous&#039; gold. I already answered that these are not like &#039;barabarous&#039; gold in weight, style, etc. You are welcome to your view but we do not accept it is a fundamental problem.</p><p><br /></p><p>Nor can we easily control the media, beyond what we say, where nuance and uncertainty rarely get conveyed.</p><p><br /></p><p>There&#039;s a lot else here. We discussed all that about IMP and so on in the paper and many times with interviews. Answering why just IMP is speculation but my guess is the engraver didn&#039;t have room - these are very poorly made objects.</p><p><br /></p><p>Sponsian is not in the Historia Augusta and so presumably wasn&#039;t known in Rome at the time it was written.</p><p><br /></p><p>There are no personal convictions, just a hypothesis that attempts to cover all the facts about these very challenging coins![/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