Cookies must be activated for full functionality of this website.
Please follow the instructions on how to enable Cookies in your web browser.

Comments

  Pscipio, 20. Sept. 2017, 19:28
  CaptainMyCaptain, 14. Sept. 2017, 23:26

This is a great error variety that has the NB Fluer de Lis stamped in the wrong quadrant then corrected with the proper Austria bar.
  Pscipio, 13. Sept. 2017, 11:20

A horribly tooled coin.
  KVMyzgin, 6. Sept. 2017, 22:27

This coin is barbarian imitation (see No 143 on http://barbarous-imitations.narod.ru/index/81_160/0-608)
  errataprobi, 5. Sept. 2017, 06:32

KA•A• = officina 1 — officina H (8) not possible at Serdica.
  errataprobi, 5. Sept. 2017, 06:26

Serdica, RIC 888 variant = Cohen 927 (not listed for officina) p. 115. // KA•A•

RIC 880 = Cohen 915 has a different reverse type: Emperor galloping right, spearing enemy whose shield lies beneath horse.
  CaptainMyCaptain, 5. Sept. 2017, 00:58

Nice. I own this coin. I wish it had come with a Certificate......This sold for far more than the estimate, so a COA would have been nice....
  CaptainMyCaptain, 5. Sept. 2017, 00:57

1714/3 obverse with new style 1714 reverse.
Despite what the Museum says about these coins.....they clearly all came from the 1715 Fleet salvage camps. Never seen a single coin in the Museum that dates past 1715....Not sure what is so wrong with Bellamy raiding the camps...Not romantic enough of a pirate story? Who knows.
  CaptainMyCaptain, 5. Sept. 2017, 00:53

Definitely not a 1711. This is the common 1713 issue, but appears to be the 1714/3 variety. Nice coin.
:)
  Sphinx357, 2. Sept. 2017, 02:53

Julian II
  Baka, 30. Aug. 2017, 22:05

This is a cast fake (weight 7.77g):
http://forgerynetwork.com/asset.aspx?id=qN9aEFDA9EQ=

From the following host (weight 9.09g) sold by Peus and CNG:
https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=2122231
https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1411138
  errataprobi, 25. Aug. 2017, 04:46

This is RIC 516, p. 72, a coin of Ticinum. Part of the EQVITI series.

  errataprobi, 25. Aug. 2017, 04:29

Description for the following lot: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=4282994
  errataprobi, 25. Aug. 2017, 04:28

Description for the following lot: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=4282995

XXIH is not a valid option for Siscia. Mintmark reads XXIV.

  cmetzner, 25. Aug. 2017, 03:48

Die Legende in der Beschreibung stimmt nicht mit der Legende auf der abgebildeten Münze überein (The legend in the description does not match the legend on the coin.) Die Legende lautet (It should read): Rs.: C PLOTIVS RVFVS IIIVIR A A A F F und Vs.: TRIBVNIC POTEST CAESAR AVGVSTVS
  antikpeter, 24. Aug. 2017, 20:59

eher KdKahle
  antikpeter, 24. Aug. 2017, 20:56

Charlemagne ou Charles le Chauve ist nicht mehr erforderlich, die Münzen lassen sich anhand der R zuordnen, pn
  antikpeter, 24. Aug. 2017, 20:52

KdE hat schwerere Denare geprägt, 1.04 Gramm ist eine viel spätere Prägung, pn
  antikpeter, 24. Aug. 2017, 20:49

Monogramm R und FR zeigen eindeutig KdKahle an.
  antikpeter, 24. Aug. 2017, 20:46

Anhand der R eindeutig KdK zuzuordnen. pn
  coinshanky, 24. Aug. 2017, 20:40

Look at this alongside Lot 3998 and 3999 - there was a 3-way mixup w/the photos. The photo shown with this lot is indeed a 1619 - "(16)19" - and is correct for Lot 3998, a Mexico 1619/8 2R. Note also that in reference to your recent comment on that 8R - that is indeed a proper rendering of "9" as seen on Mexico 1619 pieces.

The 1655 2R is shown erroneously with Lot 3999.

Lastly, the pic shown w/Lot 3998 would appear to be what they are calling "1629" in Lot 3999. While you can see how that could possibly be construed as "629", I don't see that as correct (I think that assayer mark is "F", and the style elements seem to back that up).
  CaptainMyCaptain, 21. Aug. 2017, 11:24

Bummer. I wish I could see the other coin in this lot. I just see what looks to me like a bold 19. If someone has the 55 would you contact the Spanish Colonial Numismatic Society? Thanks!
  errataprobi, 19. Aug. 2017, 07:43

This is RIC 157, p. 35, MPR 399, p. 192. The mark is R ჲ Ϛ (R wreath digamma).
  Pscipio, 17. Aug. 2017, 16:46

This is a forgery from modern dies, style, surfaces and lettering are wrong.
  Pscipio, 17. Aug. 2017, 16:46

This is a forgery from modern dies, style, surfaces and lettering are wrong.