Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Al Kowsky, post: 5401888, member: 97383&quot;]David, I think Nicolas Molinari offered the most logical answer. Even after enlarging the image there isn&#039;t enough visual evidence to make a sound conclusion <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie12" alt="o_O" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />. You can surmise by the small size of the coin that it is unlikely to be a &quot;man headed bull&quot;, but that would only be a guess <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie85" alt=":smuggrin:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />. Sometimes a great artist can create an image with ambiguity, as James Earl Fraser did with the Buffalo Nickel in 1913. As Cornelius Vermeule writes in his book <b>Numismatic Art in America</b>, some art critics thought that the Buffalo (actually a Bison) had a human face, &amp; Fraser&#039;s modeling of the beast&#039;s head could certainly be interpreted that way. Anyway, pictured below are two Buffalo nickels, one in mint state &amp; the other with heavy wear. The coin with heavy wear is a good comparison to your ancient bronze coin. You can&#039;t say either of these coins has a human face <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie2" alt=";)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1233385[/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