• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

brg5658

Member: Seasoned Veteran
  • Posts

    4,254
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Posts posted by brg5658

  1. Intentional as struck. Thus the "Serrate" Denarius designation...

    The description here:

    "The use of a serrated edge is fairly common on Roman Re-publican coins of this era. It is not certain why this was done, but the best theory we have heard is that these coins were used in payment to Northern tribes who did not always trust the Roman silver and would cut into it to make sure it was not silver-plated copper (silver-plated copper denarii are called fouree and are fairly commonly encountered even today). The serrated edges made the coins look like they had already been tested....it shows every sign that the serrations were made by chisel cuts to the flan prior to the coin being struck.

     

    BTW, Larry, I love the coin! Beautiful strike and booming luster for a 2100 year old coin!

  2. That's great Brandon. Was it part of an Olympic set or was it a regular issue?

     

    Hi John, thanks! The 10 Euro Olympic Proofs were a part of an Olympic Set issued in a mintage of 68,000 pieces for each design. The set was quite broad and covered many sporting areas including:

     

    Discus throwers

    Javelin throwers

    Long jumpers

    Relay runners

    Equestrian (the one I showed)

    Ribbon Dancer/Acrobats

    Swimming

    Runners

    Weight Lifters

    Handball

    Soccer

     

    -------------------------------------------

    Upon consulting my Krause, it seems that the issues were released in 2003 and 2004, and the equestrian issue was actually issued in 2003 (considered No Date [ND] in Krause). Thus, I was actually able to add it to my horses set after realizing this idiosyncrasy. :)

  3. Here are my two most recent tokens. The first is a common token from Kent, 1794 (DH30). I picked it up for $22 and it's in very nice condition. The 2nd is not a "Conder" per se, but it is an "unofficial farthing" from Oxfordshire (Nettlebed) from 1835 which I got from a nice dealer in the UK for $17. I'm really happy with both of them, and they are both nice additions to my ever-growing horse-collection.

     

    116604.jpg.b4825163ab9167af3ded77b29764c5e2.jpg

    116605.jpg.c7dd1d1abc85da51d083846dd8c18af8.jpg

  4. Hi Conder101, thanks for the information. I listed it as a 362i in the image based on the classification of the token in my online PDF version of the D&H. The seller I purchased it from in England (David Stuart) had it listed as a 362j, and it's lineage as from the R. Brown Jr Collection.

     

    I was confused by the use of the "i" in my PDF listing and "j" from the seller, but maybe I should stick with the "j"?? My listing separates the milled left and milled right into two separate variations, and the original seller also said that the milled left was the common issue and the milled right was a separate (less known and not listed in the original D&H) issue. The photo is mine, and the text is mine...so, my photo lists it as 362 i/j because that's what I typed. :)

     

    Thanks again for double checking your references. I really appreciate your input.