Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Curtis, post: 8276516, member: 26430&quot;]Oh, so that was you who nabbed the greatest prize from Naville 72! Congratulations, I&#039;m glad it went to you.</p><p><br /></p><p>Yours is definitely the correct coin (Dattari-Savio 2429 on Pl. 117, that is). (Keep in mind also these were rubbings <i>of casts</i> so lots of places for error to creep in. Still, overall, I find them surprisingly reliable.)</p><p><br /></p><p>Below is the image of your coin from Plate 117. Unfortunately it was on the inside of the page so I couldn&#039;t get a good angle, AND at the bottom of the plate -- some at the top and bottom were slightly cut off in the 2007 edition. A 1999 edition might have the full image. (Otherwise 2007 is preferable since it included about 700 more coins illustrated on plates found after the 1999 edition was published.)</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1461280[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>As a general rule, the numbers in the 1901 volume <i>do</i> correspond to the Dattari-Savio rubbings in the 1999/2007 vols. I haven&#039;t looked closely, but I&#039;d assume this is an editing error of some kind. <i><b>Edit: </b>Just realized the rest of the plate could solve the 2429/2431 discrepancy, so I&#039;ll <i>try to photo more of it in the morning and see if t</i>he images will explain where the error happened...</i></p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;ve bought maybe half dozen or so that are illustrated [<i>edit: I think only 5 of mine are illustrated</i>] in Dattari 1999 and/or 2007, but not illustrated in the first volume (though I&#039;m on the lookout!).</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;ve only found one discrepancy between Dattari (1901) and Dattari-Savio (1999/2007), which had to do with the legend break for <a href="https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/type/3037" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/type/3037" rel="nofollow">Dattari 4731 / RPC 3037</a>. Dattari&#039;s specimen has an uncommon legend break otherwise known (for this reverse) only from the Col. J. Curtis Collection #1265 (G-ORDIAN rather than GO-RDIAN) but Dattari transcribed it in the more common way (GO-RDIAN) in the 1901 volume. (It actually matters if Milne was correct in 1918 [“The Shops of the Roman Mint of Alexandria” (<a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/370158" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/370158" rel="nofollow">JSTOR 370158</a>)] that it represents a different workshop at the Alexandria mint):[ATTACH=full]1461282[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>That, and another strange editing mix-up with multiple confusing numbers (DS 2892bis vs. DS 9892bis vs. DS 12335) and handwritten notes on the 1999/2007 plates for this one, which <a href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=8814718" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=8814718" rel="nofollow">I detailed in comments on the ACSearch record</a>. (After emailing RPC they partially fixed it on the <a href="https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/6/10362" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/6/10362" rel="nofollow">RPC VI 10362 page</a>, but still have it in error as &quot;2892bis&quot; under &quot;Reference&quot;.)</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1461283[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>Edit: BTW, here&#039;s a thumbnail of a group shot of mine, including a couple from Dattari&#039;s coll. of late Roman bronze, and one Alexandrian Tetradrachm NOT illustrated in the D-S catalogs. (As Curtis Clay pointed out in the <a href="https://issuu.com/hjb-ancientcoins/docs/gemini_xiii" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://issuu.com/hjb-ancientcoins/docs/gemini_xiii" rel="nofollow">Gemini XIII</a> catalog [Grover/Art Inst. Chi.; 6 April 2017], some of Dattari&#039;s Alexandrian coins weren&#039;t illustrated in the D-S plates, though the proportion is unknown; more of those from the early or mid-3rd cent. onward seem to be absent.)</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH]1461287[/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