Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;red_spork, post: 2677038, member: 74282&quot;]Another cleaning update, just a couple quick cell phone pics. I&#039;ve hit a bit of a wall with this coin. The dirt is gone but underneath it was some sort of brown gunk in spots and it ain&#039;t moving, at least not with any techniques I&#039;m comfortable with using, so I&#039;ve paused the cleaning for now, pending further suggestions from my friend who was helping me clean it. If this is where it ends I&#039;d be OK as this was a cheapo and a coin I&#039;m happy to have any example of at all.</p><p><br /></p><p>Since this may be the end of the saga, I might as well leave with some info on the historical significance of the type and why I was willing to take a chance to get an example of it. This victoriatus comes from the Crawford 90 series - a Second Punic War-era issue that includes the victoriatus shown here as well as an <a href="http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10422375b.r=Rrc%2090%20victoriatus?rk=64378;0" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10422375b.r=Rrc%2090%20victoriatus?rk=64378;0" rel="nofollow">exceedingly rare and possibly unique double victoriatus</a> linked by obverse style to the victoriatus shown here. While there is very little hoard evidence to go by, the presence of a single example(at the time, only the third known) of this type in the <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/42681899?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/42681899?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents" rel="nofollow">&quot;Early Victoriati Hoard&quot;</a> published by Crawford does seem to confirm that the type is one of the earlier victoriati and as discussed earlier in the thread, Friedman and Schaefer found die links that link this victoriatus issue to the VB issue shown by [USER=76194]@Sallent[/USER] which includes another interesting denomination: the <a href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=2469223" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=2469223" rel="nofollow">half victoriatus</a>.</p><p><br /></p><p>Taken together, the die links, the hoard evidence suggesting an early origin and the fact that two irregular denominations(the double and half victoriati) can be associated with the type leads me to believe that this issue, along with the Crawford 95 VB, are likely the result of an early experiment which saw the double-victoriatus and half-victoriatus denominations abandoned. I think that given the die links, the two issues should not be separated as Crawford has done but should instead be considered part of the same issue from a single, likely moving, field mint with the fully-anonymous coins coming first and the signed VB issues coming last. As far as why there would be both signed issues and fully anonymous types in the same series, if the phenomenon was localized to a single issue I might think it was the result of simply an engraver&#039;s error. The fact that it happens with so many early issues and the fact that the hoard linked above contains so many issues of anonymous types like the one below that can be linked to signed issues but that the reality of the market suggests that the signed issues are now much more common makes me think that the fully-anonymous types largely came first and that some event, possibly some sort of misappropriation of dies or of bullion, was the impetus for the moved to signed types that could be easily and quickly traced to a particular field mint, should for instance official dies be used to make fourees.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]597535[/ATTACH][/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