Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Unusual Byzantine Anonymous Follis Help
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="dougsmit, post: 3419547, member: 19463"]I often hear now that there are no A3 but where is the evidence/reasoning? As I first learned it, A1 had no reverse decorations, A2 were larger and did have decorations while A3 were smaller but otherwise like A2. If it has been shown that the same decorations are found on both large and small coins, perhaps the separation is no more significant than overlaps we see on Roman AE1-AE4 but if certain numbers on the chart are regularly larger or smaller than others, it would seem that the separation in groups has use. We would still have to allow for the fact that many of these coins were overstruck on earlier issues so it is quite possible that there would be outlying weights in any group. Has anyone recorded weights and measurements of several specimens of the Dumbarton Oaks table types? I have not made a study of it by any means but have noticed that coins using some of the symbols like the ones in my collection seem to be of similar weight. There are also other points to consider including lettering styles (there are some letter A variations which seem to follow sizes). I see denying A3 as not unlike declaring Pluto is not a planet. Redefining terms is not new science unless accompanied by reasoning. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater is not usually justified. </p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]907460[/ATTACH] </p><p>The above DO variety 1 is 15.73g and has the letter A in a shape I'd like to a Chinese spade coin for lack of a better name. Do these come in light weight versions? </p><p><br /></p><p>Is the <i>debunking </i>of Metcalf paper public or is there a publicly available summery beyond 'the old man was wrong'? </p><p><br /></p><p>Science or sensational rubbish? </p><p><a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=einstein+errors&rlz=1C1CHNQ_en___US808&oq=einstein+errors&aqs=chrome..69i57.5280j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.google.com/search?q=einstein+errors&rlz=1C1CHNQ_en___US808&oq=einstein+errors&aqs=chrome..69i57.5280j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8" rel="nofollow">https://www.google.com/search?q=einstein+errors&rlz=1C1CHNQ_en___US808&oq=einstein+errors&aqs=chrome..69i57.5280j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8</a>[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="dougsmit, post: 3419547, member: 19463"]I often hear now that there are no A3 but where is the evidence/reasoning? As I first learned it, A1 had no reverse decorations, A2 were larger and did have decorations while A3 were smaller but otherwise like A2. If it has been shown that the same decorations are found on both large and small coins, perhaps the separation is no more significant than overlaps we see on Roman AE1-AE4 but if certain numbers on the chart are regularly larger or smaller than others, it would seem that the separation in groups has use. We would still have to allow for the fact that many of these coins were overstruck on earlier issues so it is quite possible that there would be outlying weights in any group. Has anyone recorded weights and measurements of several specimens of the Dumbarton Oaks table types? I have not made a study of it by any means but have noticed that coins using some of the symbols like the ones in my collection seem to be of similar weight. There are also other points to consider including lettering styles (there are some letter A variations which seem to follow sizes). I see denying A3 as not unlike declaring Pluto is not a planet. Redefining terms is not new science unless accompanied by reasoning. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater is not usually justified. [ATTACH=full]907460[/ATTACH] The above DO variety 1 is 15.73g and has the letter A in a shape I'd like to a Chinese spade coin for lack of a better name. Do these come in light weight versions? Is the [I]debunking [/I]of Metcalf paper public or is there a publicly available summery beyond 'the old man was wrong'? Science or sensational rubbish? [url]https://www.google.com/search?q=einstein+errors&rlz=1C1CHNQ_en___US808&oq=einstein+errors&aqs=chrome..69i57.5280j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8[/url][/QUOTE]
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
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Unusual Byzantine Anonymous Follis Help
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...