Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;kaparthy, post: 102749, member: 57463&quot;]You did not ruin anything important.</p><p>&quot;Many scholars believe that they represent a formal policy of the Roman mint in which plated pieces comprised a portion of most issues. Michael Crawford, a noted English scholar, denies this position since no die-links between plated and solid-silver pieces have been found. Hence, he holds that all such pieces are counterfeits.&quot;</p><p><a href="http://home.cogeco.ca/~cmns/deceptions%207.htm" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://home.cogeco.ca/~cmns/deceptions%207.htm" rel="nofollow">http://home.cogeco.ca/~cmns/deceptions 7.htm</a></p><p>&nbsp;In the words of Michael H. Crawford: &quot;No one seriously </p><p>doubts that a large proportion of the plated Roman coins which survive </p><p>for study can be dismissed as private forgeries. But it is widely </p><p>believed that some plated Roman coins should be regarded as official </p><p>products of the mint. Neither evidence nor probability supports such </p><p>belief.&quot; </p><p><br /></p><p>Michael Crawford&#039;s thesis was called &quot;Plated Coin -- False Coin.&quot; ( Numismatic Chronicle ser. 7 vol.</p><p>8, 55–9 and pl. XIV.)&nbsp; It was on that basis that I re-examined the so-called &quot;emergency issue&quot; Owls, the plated tetradrachms of Athens and came to a similar (qualified) conclusion: they are (most likely, in most cases) fake fakes, not official issues.[/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