JKK

Here is what I experience. It tells me I'm logged out, but behaves like I'm not. I go to My NGC at top right and choose to log out using the dropdown. Then I log back in. Lasts me about a week. Totally pointless extra effort imposed on us, been this way for several months.

Brutal abuse. Whatever tool was used to do that to that Walker should be used on the nuts of whoever did it. (I assume nuts because as a general rule women are not nearly as stupidly destructive.)

Brutal abuse. Whatever tool was used to do that to that Walker should be used on the nuts of whoever did it. (I assume nuts because as a general rule women are not nearly as stupidly destructive.)

Brutal abuse. Whatever tool was used to do that to that Walker should be used on the nuts of whoever did it. (I assume nuts because as a general rule women are not nearly as stupidly destructive.)

Wildwinds is a good place to dig. It's set up by emperor and make sure you click the link to view it with the thumbnail images. Between that, and the fact that legends are rendered in all caps, you have a pretty good chance to find this one. So the logical method in this case is to start with Val I, show the thumbnails, feed the word "pearl" into your browser's search, and start scanning. Anything that doesn't say AE (silver is AR, gold would be AV) you can ignore. If the obverse looks like yours, look for cues to the legend (their example might very well be sharper). If you think you have a candidate, bother with the reverse and see if it's that soldier with captive and the standard. If everything seems to match up, see if you can get the exergue (indistinct letters at bottom reverse) and letters in fields. Fairly good odds you will find a match if you look through enough post-337 emperors.

Brutal abuse. Whatever tool was used to do that to that Walker should be used on the nuts of whoever did it. (I assume nuts because as a general rule women are not nearly as stupidly destructive.)

Thank you very much. You have encouraged me to look into this farther. Im definately gonna do some more research. Thank you for taking the time to look at it and give me that info. 

Here are some notes that could help you get started on this one. The bust is pearl diademed, draped and cuirassed right. Sizewise you're looking at AE 20 (could be found under AE 19-21--with bronzes, the number often refers to the diameter, and AE is what we say for copper-based composition, typically bronze). The obverse legend is kind of muddy and the easily read parts, like DN, are not uncommon. It is certainly from the first half of the 300s CE, in my opinion. The reverse legend might be GLORIA ROMANORVM and the distinctive design looks like the common fallen horseman (captive at bottom L), but the soldier holding the standard would be a good scanning point because they usually aren't. It might be a chi-rho (X over P--common symbol in early Christianity, as most Christian numismatists of the period will spot a mile off because even in our modern day it's still in use). If I were to suggest a good starting reign it would be Valentinian I, but could be someone else from that timeframe. The pearl diadem is a quick way to rule out an obverse--if it doesn't have that, it ain't your coin. So if you go Wildwinding, which I would encourage, seek the pearl diadem and the draping clasp on the obverse, soldier with captive and holding chi-rho standard reverse, probably the legend I mentioned earlier.

I don't find that wheel reverse in Greek coinage, which same I did not expect to find. More likely it is south-central Asian, but I don't know the age or precise region, so that would mean an exhausting slog through zeno.ru. I think it's older than 1600 CE. As you've noted, the obverse is sufficiently mucked up that identification based on that side is problematic. I'd go looking for that wheel, which remains nicely defined. The dot circle around it is fairly common in south central Asian coinage, especially Afghan and Persian. It's not Kushan, if that helps at all.

Realistically, there is only one answer to that: The OP must surely believe there is at least a chance that the received opinion of this whole group might be wrong. And that's okay. I do not understand it, but if the OP must spend $80ish in order to confirm that we're all correct, it's their money.

Been asking it for years. Even learned to speak some Swedish. You'd think after over two decades of marriage she'd have gotten it by now, but noooooooo.

You should post them. We have a number of sharp ancients guys on here.

Ruler that can measure in mm. If it's odd-shaped, measure the narrowest and widest points and average them.

Welcome to my world.

I think most of the regulars accept this principle, but it might be easier if someone just explained it. Okay:
Diameter plus metal are our biggest tells on denomination. Denomination governs where in the book we look, or which coins on Wildwinds at least are worth examining. We can't tell how big the coin is from a picture without context. It is reasonable to ask the poster to help us to help them. Weight tends to be a confirming factor. Confirming factors are important. I have an Ephesian piece that is way too small for what it is, and the consensus is it's lost some of its brassy metal to some sort of clipping or other diameter reduction. If I were hunting for that coin, and both diameter and weight were proportionately low but it was otherwise a match, I'd probably think I found it. Same is true of my profile coin, a Diocletian Greek Imperial piece. It's too small. The only thing like it in the book is something that tells me how large it was before someone filed it off. We always care about authenticity. While correct weight and diameter do not prove authenticity, incorrect weight and diameter do suggest a high hink factor. So that's mostly it. Just makes it easier.
I suppose that for some of us, failure to include that information feels like a bit of an affront. It can be interpreted as "imma do wut i want f u now ur job is 2 give me teh info so just serve me minion." Put literately, "I want your knowledge but I can't be bothered to make it easier for you. It's all about me, me, me." I for one love looking up ancient coins, but if someone can save me a number of blind alleys, I think they should be eager to do so. When I want free help from other people, I don't come in with a sense of lazy entitlement. I try humility. Some of the inquiries remind me of the eh-holes who used to interrupt my lunch at the convention center, where I'd be sitting way off by myself eating and reading a book. They'd barge right up to me and ask "How do I get to Rainier Square?" without even simple manners. Their suits and rudeness were to be taken as their right to be served by the lowly minions around them. (I always sent them down to where I knew the peepshows were.)

Welcome to my world.

I think most of the regulars accept this principle, but it might be easier if someone just explained it. Okay:
Diameter plus metal are our biggest tells on denomination. Denomination governs where in the book we look, or which coins on Wildwinds at least are worth examining. We can't tell how big the coin is from a picture without context. It is reasonable to ask the poster to help us to help them. Weight tends to be a confirming factor. Confirming factors are important. I have an Ephesian piece that is way too small for what it is, and the consensus is it's lost some of its brassy metal to some sort of clipping or other diameter reduction. If I were hunting for that coin, and both diameter and weight were proportionately low but it was otherwise a match, I'd probably think I found it. Same is true of my profile coin, a Diocletian Greek Imperial piece. It's too small. The only thing like it in the book is something that tells me how large it was before someone filed it off. We always care about authenticity. While correct weight and diameter do not prove authenticity, incorrect weight and diameter do suggest a high hink factor. So that's mostly it. Just makes it easier.
I suppose that for some of us, failure to include that information feels like a bit of an affront. It can be interpreted as "imma do wut i want f u now ur job is 2 give me teh info so just serve me minion." Put literately, "I want your knowledge but I can't be bothered to make it easier for you. It's all about me, me, me." I for one love looking up ancient coins, but if someone can save me a number of blind alleys, I think they should be eager to do so. When I want free help from other people, I don't come in with a sense of lazy entitlement. I try humility. Some of the inquiries remind me of the eh-holes who used to interrupt my lunch at the convention center, where I'd be sitting way off by myself eating and reading a book. They'd barge right up to me and ask "How do I get to Rainier Square?" without even simple manners. Their suits and rudeness were to be taken as their right to be served by the lowly minions around them. (I always sent them down to where I knew the peepshows were.)

They won't. However, it will help regulars be aware of that aspect, so if someone pushes back, those not as familiar with ancients will understand and can explain exactly why the question is asked.

I think most of the regulars accept this principle, but it might be easier if someone just explained it. Okay:
Diameter plus metal are our biggest tells on denomination. Denomination governs where in the book we look, or which coins on Wildwinds at least are worth examining. We can't tell how big the coin is from a picture without context. It is reasonable to ask the poster to help us to help them. Weight tends to be a confirming factor. Confirming factors are important. I have an Ephesian piece that is way too small for what it is, and the consensus is it's lost some of its brassy metal to some sort of clipping or other diameter reduction. If I were hunting for that coin, and both diameter and weight were proportionately low but it was otherwise a match, I'd probably think I found it. Same is true of my profile coin, a Diocletian Greek Imperial piece. It's too small. The only thing like it in the book is something that tells me how large it was before someone filed it off. We always care about authenticity. While correct weight and diameter do not prove authenticity, incorrect weight and diameter do suggest a high hink factor. So that's mostly it. Just makes it easier.
I suppose that for some of us, failure to include that information feels like a bit of an affront. It can be interpreted as "imma do wut i want f u now ur job is 2 give me teh info so just serve me minion." Put literately, "I want your knowledge but I can't be bothered to make it easier for you. It's all about me, me, me." I for one love looking up ancient coins, but if someone can save me a number of blind alleys, I think they should be eager to do so. When I want free help from other people, I don't come in with a sense of lazy entitlement. I try humility. Some of the inquiries remind me of the eh-holes who used to interrupt my lunch at the convention center, where I'd be sitting way off by myself eating and reading a book. They'd barge right up to me and ask "How do I get to Rainier Square?" without even simple manners. Their suits and rudeness were to be taken as their right to be served by the lowly minions around them. (I always sent them down to where I knew the peepshows were.)

I think most of the regulars accept this principle, but it might be easier if someone just explained it. Okay:
Diameter plus metal are our biggest tells on denomination. Denomination governs where in the book we look, or which coins on Wildwinds at least are worth examining. We can't tell how big the coin is from a picture without context. It is reasonable to ask the poster to help us to help them. Weight tends to be a confirming factor. Confirming factors are important. I have an Ephesian piece that is way too small for what it is, and the consensus is it's lost some of its brassy metal to some sort of clipping or other diameter reduction. If I were hunting for that coin, and both diameter and weight were proportionately low but it was otherwise a match, I'd probably think I found it. Same is true of my profile coin, a Diocletian Greek Imperial piece. It's too small. The only thing like it in the book is something that tells me how large it was before someone filed it off. We always care about authenticity. While correct weight and diameter do not prove authenticity, incorrect weight and diameter do suggest a high hink factor. So that's mostly it. Just makes it easier.
I suppose that for some of us, failure to include that information feels like a bit of an affront. It can be interpreted as "imma do wut i want f u now ur job is 2 give me teh info so just serve me minion." Put literately, "I want your knowledge but I can't be bothered to make it easier for you. It's all about me, me, me." I for one love looking up ancient coins, but if someone can save me a number of blind alleys, I think they should be eager to do so. When I want free help from other people, I don't come in with a sense of lazy entitlement. I try humility. Some of the inquiries remind me of the eh-holes who used to interrupt my lunch at the convention center, where I'd be sitting way off by myself eating and reading a book. They'd barge right up to me and ask "How do I get to Rainier Square?" without even simple manners. Their suits and rudeness were to be taken as their right to be served by the lowly minions around them. (I always sent them down to where I knew the peepshows were.)

I think most of the regulars accept this principle, but it might be easier if someone just explained it. Okay:
Diameter plus metal are our biggest tells on denomination. Denomination governs where in the book we look, or which coins on Wildwinds at least are worth examining. We can't tell how big the coin is from a picture without context. It is reasonable to ask the poster to help us to help them. Weight tends to be a confirming factor. Confirming factors are important. I have an Ephesian piece that is way too small for what it is, and the consensus is it's lost some of its brassy metal to some sort of clipping or other diameter reduction. If I were hunting for that coin, and both diameter and weight were proportionately low but it was otherwise a match, I'd probably think I found it. Same is true of my profile coin, a Diocletian Greek Imperial piece. It's too small. The only thing like it in the book is something that tells me how large it was before someone filed it off. We always care about authenticity. While correct weight and diameter do not prove authenticity, incorrect weight and diameter do suggest a high hink factor. So that's mostly it. Just makes it easier.
I suppose that for some of us, failure to include that information feels like a bit of an affront. It can be interpreted as "imma do wut i want f u now ur job is 2 give me teh info so just serve me minion." Put literately, "I want your knowledge but I can't be bothered to make it easier for you. It's all about me, me, me." I for one love looking up ancient coins, but if someone can save me a number of blind alleys, I think they should be eager to do so. When I want free help from other people, I don't come in with a sense of lazy entitlement. I try humility. Some of the inquiries remind me of the eh-holes who used to interrupt my lunch at the convention center, where I'd be sitting way off by myself eating and reading a book. They'd barge right up to me and ask "How do I get to Rainier Square?" without even simple manners. Their suits and rudeness were to be taken as their right to be served by the lowly minions around them. (I always sent them down to where I knew the peepshows were.)

I think most of the regulars accept this principle, but it might be easier if someone just explained it. Okay:
Diameter plus metal are our biggest tells on denomination. Denomination governs where in the book we look, or which coins on Wildwinds at least are worth examining. We can't tell how big the coin is from a picture without context. It is reasonable to ask the poster to help us to help them. Weight tends to be a confirming factor. Confirming factors are important. I have an Ephesian piece that is way too small for what it is, and the consensus is it's lost some of its brassy metal to some sort of clipping or other diameter reduction. If I were hunting for that coin, and both diameter and weight were proportionately low but it was otherwise a match, I'd probably think I found it. Same is true of my profile coin, a Diocletian Greek Imperial piece. It's too small. The only thing like it in the book is something that tells me how large it was before someone filed it off. We always care about authenticity. While correct weight and diameter do not prove authenticity, incorrect weight and diameter do suggest a high hink factor. So that's mostly it. Just makes it easier.
I suppose that for some of us, failure to include that information feels like a bit of an affront. It can be interpreted as "imma do wut i want f u now ur job is 2 give me teh info so just serve me minion." Put literately, "I want your knowledge but I can't be bothered to make it easier for you. It's all about me, me, me." I for one love looking up ancient coins, but if someone can save me a number of blind alleys, I think they should be eager to do so. When I want free help from other people, I don't come in with a sense of lazy entitlement. I try humility. Some of the inquiries remind me of the eh-holes who used to interrupt my lunch at the convention center, where I'd be sitting way off by myself eating and reading a book. They'd barge right up to me and ask "How do I get to Rainier Square?" without even simple manners. Their suits and rudeness were to be taken as their right to be served by the lowly minions around them. (I always sent them down to where I knew the peepshows were.)

I think most of the regulars accept this principle, but it might be easier if someone just explained it. Okay:
Diameter plus metal are our biggest tells on denomination. Denomination governs where in the book we look, or which coins on Wildwinds at least are worth examining. We can't tell how big the coin is from a picture without context. It is reasonable to ask the poster to help us to help them. Weight tends to be a confirming factor. Confirming factors are important. I have an Ephesian piece that is way too small for what it is, and the consensus is it's lost some of its brassy metal to some sort of clipping or other diameter reduction. If I were hunting for that coin, and both diameter and weight were proportionately low but it was otherwise a match, I'd probably think I found it. Same is true of my profile coin, a Diocletian Greek Imperial piece. It's too small. The only thing like it in the book is something that tells me how large it was before someone filed it off. We always care about authenticity. While correct weight and diameter do not prove authenticity, incorrect weight and diameter do suggest a high hink factor. So that's mostly it. Just makes it easier.
I suppose that for some of us, failure to include that information feels like a bit of an affront. It can be interpreted as "imma do wut i want f u now ur job is 2 give me teh info so just serve me minion." Put literately, "I want your knowledge but I can't be bothered to make it easier for you. It's all about me, me, me." I for one love looking up ancient coins, but if someone can save me a number of blind alleys, I think they should be eager to do so. When I want free help from other people, I don't come in with a sense of lazy entitlement. I try humility. Some of the inquiries remind me of the eh-holes who used to interrupt my lunch at the convention center, where I'd be sitting way off by myself eating and reading a book. They'd barge right up to me and ask "How do I get to Rainier Square?" without even simple manners. Their suits and rudeness were to be taken as their right to be served by the lowly minions around them. (I always sent them down to where I knew the peepshows were.)

I think most of the regulars accept this principle, but it might be easier if someone just explained it. Okay:
Diameter plus metal are our biggest tells on denomination. Denomination governs where in the book we look, or which coins on Wildwinds at least are worth examining. We can't tell how big the coin is from a picture without context. It is reasonable to ask the poster to help us to help them. Weight tends to be a confirming factor. Confirming factors are important. I have an Ephesian piece that is way too small for what it is, and the consensus is it's lost some of its brassy metal to some sort of clipping or other diameter reduction. If I were hunting for that coin, and both diameter and weight were proportionately low but it was otherwise a match, I'd probably think I found it. Same is true of my profile coin, a Diocletian Greek Imperial piece. It's too small. The only thing like it in the book is something that tells me how large it was before someone filed it off. We always care about authenticity. While correct weight and diameter do not prove authenticity, incorrect weight and diameter do suggest a high hink factor. So that's mostly it. Just makes it easier.
I suppose that for some of us, failure to include that information feels like a bit of an affront. It can be interpreted as "imma do wut i want f u now ur job is 2 give me teh info so just serve me minion." Put literately, "I want your knowledge but I can't be bothered to make it easier for you. It's all about me, me, me." I for one love looking up ancient coins, but if someone can save me a number of blind alleys, I think they should be eager to do so. When I want free help from other people, I don't come in with a sense of lazy entitlement. I try humility. Some of the inquiries remind me of the eh-holes who used to interrupt my lunch at the convention center, where I'd be sitting way off by myself eating and reading a book. They'd barge right up to me and ask "How do I get to Rainier Square?" without even simple manners. Their suits and rudeness were to be taken as their right to be served by the lowly minions around them. (I always sent them down to where I knew the peepshows were.)

When it's that faint, sorry, but it's not actually there. Something that looks like it might be there, but it's not the Carson City mint mark. That would be impossible to miss. It's just an 1882 Morgan with good detail and what looks like a worn and scratched obverse.