Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 1093026, member: 19463&quot;]I&#039;m away from home now and don&#039;t have the books handy but some consul numbers do more for dating than others.&nbsp; Trajan was COS V in 103 and COS VI in 112 so the coin is 103-111 AD.&nbsp; There are other titles that can help pin it down a bit.&nbsp; Oher times when a ruler took consulships in two consecutive years, COS can be a year date.&nbsp; One easy and cheap resource here is David Sear&#039;s Roman Coins and their Values NOT the new big expensive Millenium edition but the old one volume model from the 70&#039;s.&nbsp; He had a nice chart for each emperor showing when various titles were added so you could follow down whatever evidence was there.&nbsp; I might add that some coin dating is based on theories published by authors of varying degrees of ability so you will find differences of opinion on placement of some issues.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I agree with medoraman that there are coins more interesting than 95% of the Romans but the fact remains that 75% of my collection is Roman in some manner (Imperial, Provincial) and the 5% of Romans that I consider especially interesting are really, really interesting to me.&nbsp; I&#039;m not particularly into Trajan and Hadrian which means their coins have to try harder to make me want them.&nbsp; You probably feel that way about Septimius Severus.[/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