Dear
Pat,
I am sorry but
Forum folks are not only nuns and university professors. There are a lot of tough guys here: militaries, politicians, criminals etc. Also
quite a lot of teenagers with there maximalism.
There are so sensitive people that desaccord with their positions they consider as an insult. In some societies the innocent claim
"Sorry, I am stupid, I do not understand this" (for himself, beloved!) means that the individual may think about others: " You are stupid, you do not understand this"!
A person who make an intervention on the board should be robust as anybody going to a public activity.
I appreciated the arguments of Kjetil. He won a point or a half against
Curtis Clay providing an example with PP!
There is no need to say that this do not diminish my respect to
Curtis and
his erudition. Again, it would be nice to see a pic of one of a half dozen examples mentioned by Barry. Kjetil's arrangement for
Antioch coins is quite spectacular: indeed, the eyes on the coin in question can be clasified as of the
Antioch style.
Exploring some
fakes from my
collection, I could arrive to the end, i.e. to find the originals from which the casts were made. This eliminated a slim possibility that the item is an acient forgery.
It is important to understand the logic of forger and the source of
his ideas (for me the example with PP solves a
part of the problem and : it was
used to fabricate the copy of a presumably very
rare legend).
What extra arguments could
help Kjetil? It would be useful to see the edge of this coin.
In principle, he could contact the buyer and discuss the problem in person. Of course, a pic of another copy will remove
his doubts...