Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;philologus_1, post: 3723111, member: 92212&quot;]Showing worn historical coins is a cool idea for a thread [USER=82616]@David Atherton[/USER]!&nbsp; Almost all ancient collectors are bound to have at <i>least</i> a few.&nbsp; &nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>You know how common the phrase &quot;better in hand&quot; is? Well, I guarantee you my coin below is NOT &quot;better in hand&quot;. The wonders of photo editing can produce an image that appears slightly better than the coin-in-hand, and such is the case with this image (which BTW was the listing picture).</p><p>[ATTACH=full]997989[/ATTACH]</p><p>No real details.&nbsp; The eyes/nose/chin profile is worn away forever.&nbsp; (But if you squint hard <b>and</b> use your imagination you can see what may be an eye socket.) The king&#039;s right elbow and his left hand were struck on the flan, but have similarly been worn into oblivion.&nbsp; And if you didn&#039;t know the king had a long beard you may not be able to discern that he is indeed sporting one. </p><p><br /></p><p>However, it IS a daric. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> And I believe it is Carradice Type IIIb, which would be <i>circa</i> 480-420 B.C.&nbsp; It is 13mm at the widest point, and it weighs 8.32 grams.</p><p><br /></p><p>It hails from the approximate midpoint of the influential and far-reaching Achaemenid Empire.&nbsp; The numismatic &#039;denomination&#039; of &#039;Daric&#039; is mentioned in 1. Chronicles and also again in Ezra, although nearly assuredly in an anachronistic sense.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>Related: In a coin listing/description what is the difference between &quot;honest wear&quot; and just &quot;wear&quot;?&nbsp; For some reason &quot;honest wear&quot; sure sounds better! ;-)[/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