acsearch.info

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

Comments

  joha2000 21. Apr. 2018, 22:17

Ex Bankhaus Aufhäuser 11, lot 347, 1995.
  errataprobi 19. Apr. 2018, 19:42

This is a coin of Antioch, from series marked A//XXI to ЄΔ//XXI.
RIC 922, p. 120. Pink p. 40 [28].

Siscia did not have an officina H (= 8) in that reign.
  errataprobi 19. Apr. 2018, 19:30

This is a coin from the 4th Eastern mint. See S. Estiot "L’Empereur et l’usurpateur: un 4e atelier oriental sous Probus." In: Studies in Ancient Coinage in Honour of Andrew Burnett, Spink, London, 2015.
  errataprobi 19. Apr. 2018, 19:26

This is a coin of Tripolis, RIC 927, p. 121. Pink, P. 42 [30].
  Tejas554 19. Apr. 2018, 18:45

I think the fields have clearly been smoothed and some elements on the reverse (emperor's face and dress) has been recut (tooled).
  Tejas554 19. Apr. 2018, 16:57

A second Piece was auctioned here:
https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1520267
The old ticket confirms that the coin was found in the northern Black Sea region
  Tejas554 19. Apr. 2018, 16:52

This imitation Comes from the northern Black Sea region and was made by the Goths or Sarmatians.
  Tejas554 19. Apr. 2018, 16:49

This imitation is almost certainly not from India, but the northern Black Sea Region. Sarmatians and Goths seemed to have produced these in substantial quantities.
  joha2000 15. Apr. 2018, 23:12

Ex Müller Solingen 30, lot 725, 1980.
  joha2000 15. Apr. 2018, 22:57

Ex Müller Solingen 30, lot 706, 1980.
  joha2000 15. Apr. 2018, 22:17

Ex Müller Solingen 30, lot 730, 1980.
  euclide_geoart 14. Apr. 2018, 00:01

yes this is the same coin, but i guess it isn't tooled, but rather they have removed the patina that sometimes hides some details under it and after that they have repatinated it.
  Tejas554 13. Apr. 2018, 13:29

Wow, the "reworked" coin is numismatically practically worthless in my view.
  JanB 13. Apr. 2018, 03:02

Ex Clarence S. Bement Collection, Naville & Cie VIII, 1924, Lot 772. See::

http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/kundig_naville1924_06_25

(Page 43 and Table 24)
  JanB 12. Apr. 2018, 01:52

Same coin as this one (after smoothing, tooling and repatination):

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1611708

The claim of a "riverine" patina thus appears to be a farce.
  Tejas554 10. Apr. 2018, 20:18

... under "Various Vandals", Vandals for Justinian
  Tejas554 10. Apr. 2018, 20:16

This is a later Ostrogothic nummus using a variation of the Theoderic monogram. The Odovacar monogram has no lower letter O and no letter R. Also on Odovacar nummi the obverse legend should not start with DN ... .
  Tejas554 10. Apr. 2018, 20:12

This coin cannot be attributed to Odovacar. The Odovacar monogram has no lower letter O. The bust is also wrong. This coin is an African (Vandalic?) nummus. See here: http://www.catbikes.ch/coinstuff/monograms.htm
  montgoej 10. Apr. 2018, 02:27

The correct Crawford number is Crawford 72/4
  belg_jos 9. Apr. 2018, 16:17

Overstruck on jeton for Jean Cools, Treasurer at Brussels, 1677, with reference Dugniolle 4381.
  Tejas554 9. Apr. 2018, 12:08

The reverse shows the monogram of Athalaric:
https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3109915
This version of the monogram is otherwise only known from silver coins.
  Tejas554 9. Apr. 2018, 11:40

The letter "M" in COMOB was probably not intended. The engraver seemed to have corrected an engraving error and inadvertently creating an "M" . The mint mark is probably the regular CONOB.
  Tejas554 8. Apr. 2018, 23:11

Zenon died in 491 and thus did not defeat Odovacer in 493. Instead, it was Theoderic who defeated Odovacer.
  Tejas554 8. Apr. 2018, 23:08

The eagle should be directed to the left not the right. Its style is also very different from the official issues. This coin may be a contemporary imitation, i.e. an unofficial issue.
  Tejas554 8. Apr. 2018, 23:05

This coin is unlike any 5-nummi piece of the period. It is almost certainly a modern forgery.