Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Gavin Richardson, post: 3002891, member: 83956&quot;]<font size="4">What a generous reply from [USER=80804]@lehmansterms[/USER]! For my cataloguing, though, I’m now experiencing option paralysis. Victor’s elegant solution–just skip it such classification entirely–is very attractive. But then for my LRB’s, my cataloguing scheme will have a blank beside <b>TYPE</b>–a necessary criterion for other early coins such as sestertii, dupondii, etc. (See image of my scheme below, featuring a coin bought from Victor.) I am much too anal-retentive to leave the <b>TYPE </b>entry blank. But I guess that’s just my own hang-up.</font></p><p><font size="4"><br /></font></p><p><font size="4">I’m very grateful for all this input, if only for the education I’m getting in denominations and historic attempts to classify them.</font></p><p><font size="4"><b><br /></b></font></p><p><font size="4"><b><br /></b></font></p><p><font size="4"><b>[ATTACH=full]743343[/ATTACH] </b></font>[/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