Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 3950326, member: 19463&quot;]Yes, this is the mint Mattingly assigned to Emesa but sometimes we see it as Emesa or Laodicea and some recent writers have moved to Antioch or Cappidocea.&nbsp; It might be better just to say &#039;Eastern&#039; but I prefer to stick with &quot;Emesa&quot; in full realization that &quot;I don&#039;t know&quot; is at least as accurate.&nbsp; M personal tendency is to assign these coins to a mobile mint operation travelling with the emperor but that is no more than a romantic pipe dream either. </p><p><br /></p><p>Your coin has the VICTOR reverse I mentioned above.&nbsp; From style, I suspect these are later than the VICTR coins but attaching exact numbers to things like that is above my pay grade.&nbsp; I know I tend to dismiss changes proposed by students that have no better comments than they are sure the old answers are wrong. I believe Emesa was a guess based on the theory that Antioch was disgraced by supporting Pescennius Niger and Emesa was politically correct as the home of Domna.&nbsp; The question is whether we should post guesses, however educated, and have them copied and parroted as if they were certain fact.&nbsp; I can live with Eastern or &quot;Emesa&quot; (quotation marks significant) until I feel comfortable with the other proposals.&nbsp; I won&#039;t be around to see what 22nd century scholars have to say about all this but I would really like to know both what and why. </p><p><br /></p><p>Some dies are cuter.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1040947[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>Some are not.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1040949[/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