acsearch.info - Auction research

Comments

rorey36 17. July 2017, 22:07

Troxell 50.7

rorey36 17. July 2017, 22:01

Is a drachm . Not in Troxell

rorey36 17. July 2017, 21:58

Is a drachm . Troxell 29.3

siliquae 17. July 2017, 19:39

Il n'existe pas de référence RIC261 pour l’atelier d'Antioche. Cette silique, de poids faible, est la référence RIC186 (358-363)

siliquae 17. July 2017, 19:27

Au vu du poids (2.2 environ), il s'agit plutôt de la RIC186 émise après la réforme de 358.
La référence indiquée (RIC 108) pèse en effet une silique lourde soit autour de 3.3 gr.
SIliquae

siliquae 16. July 2017, 11:59

Une série très courte dans laquelle, surtout pour Valens, figure une croix dans le médaillon sommital au lieu d'un point. 3 exemplaires de trois émissions différentes référencés.
Siliquae
www.siliques.fr

Stamaseus 16. July 2017, 09:47

Not unique anymore. Naumann Numismatic of June 2017 #69 same bull exists.

CaptainMyCaptain 14. July 2017, 02:07

FAKE. Classic example of the so called "Fisher Fakes". So poorly executed it looks like play money. Beware of any GOLD "cob" from 1731-1733 in any denomination. They do not exist.

Tara_Lasater 12. July 2017, 22:48

This cannot be a Berenice Sv. 1113 type- that type does not have the Dioscuri stars on the reverse.

bonoimpprobo 11. July 2017, 06:33

RIC 911 of Cyzicus, CM (Cyzici Moneta) clearly visible above XXIQ.

bonoimpprobo 11. July 2017, 06:13

This is RIC 780, RIC page 102.

bonoimpprobo 11. July 2017, 06:05

This is RIC 911 of Cyzicus — the CM (Cyzici Moneta) can still be seen above XXIT.

lazooro 9. July 2017, 19:47

Everyone does copy paste..all listings, like it is hard to see that rev. legend is: -HIO CLA. Should be more careful as they all only copy and we have around only wrong descriptions. I wrote here but almost all have such problems.

CaptainMyCaptain 8. July 2017, 01:15

1695 issue R not 1699.
These two issues are confused a LOT. The key is to get to know the design elements if you cant read the dates. The 1695 issue is typically a Passant lion, vs the 1699 Rampant which is more "bear like". The breast of the lion in the 1695 issues are typically exposed, some varieties do have a lion that is more rampant, but even this Lion is quite different and more similiar to the exposed breast lion than the 1699 R "BEAR LIONS". The 5 in the 1695 issues looks like a 9, because of the style of the Spanish "5" on the coinage of this period. The leg of the 5 does not arch ) like the 9s leg does, it is straight. The top of the five is also not closed - though it often appears as it is. There is a small simple notch that is cut for the top of the 5 and it arches back down to the leg vs being a flat top. Hope that helps. Happy collecting

CaptainMyCaptain 8. July 2017, 01:05

1695 issue R not 1699.

CaptainMyCaptain 8. July 2017, 01:05

1695 issue R not 1699.

joha2000 6. July 2017, 23:37

Nice treasure: the coin under the left double sestertius was Elmer 570 (very rare Postumus with rare C-A letters for Colonia Agrippiniensis), coin was re-sold by a german coin dealer on vcoins for 2250 EUR! I wonder, which price the lot would have realized if two pictures with obverse and reverse would have been available..

https://www.vcoins.com/en/stores/sebastian_sondermann/150/product/postumus_antoninianus__very_rare_type_with_cologne_mintmark_c__a__elmer_570__ex_luckger_collection/808298/Default.aspx

Pscipio 6. July 2017, 10:14