Bosporus help please

[HELEN S]

  

 This coin has proved to be a bit of a challenge. I have the collectors ticket but I do think that it may not be correct and would like to know if we have anyone that could help with its true identification. Thank you as always for your time and expertise looking forward to any information about it

[Pekka K]

Date reads 546 = 249 AD, thus Rheskuporis IV.

Pekka k

[HELEN S]

Date reads 546 = 249 AD, thus Rheskuporis IV.

Pekka k

   

  That is a great help thank you very much..... IV ok that is so interesting thank you

[HELEN S]

 So maybe this coin then......  I am quite happy with the date of 249 and Rhescuporis IV so I  don't quite understand why it says Friesian identifies  for this period Rhescuporis III and if anyone could give me an explanation why all these different dates please
Diademed bust of Rhescuporis right; ΒΑCΙΛΕωC ΡΗCΚΟΠΟ around; border of dots.
 Bust of Emperor (Philip I / Trajan Decius ?) right; club to right;
 year ΕMΦ (248/249 AD) below; border of dots.
Friesian identifies for this period Rhescuporis III, 233 AD, only.
 Initially it was believed that two different kings reigned during this period of time,
 it is now accepted that there was only one [MacDonald, 2005]
Anokhin 696 (242-276 AD);
 Copenhagen IV 84 year variant (Rhescuporis V or VI 239-276 AD);
MacDonald 607.1 (242.276 BC); Sear Greek Imperial 5497 year variant (239-276 AD);
 Stancomb 1018/1021 variant (242-276 AD); Станиславский 646,

[djmacdo]

Various writers have numbered the Rhescupori in different ways, so one perosn's Rhescopous II is another's III!  Confusiing!  Depends upon whom you are following in cataloguing.  Yours is quite a nice coin--most of these from this period are either very poorly struck, corroded, or generally damaged--it was not a good alloy!

[HELEN S]

Various writers have numbered the Rhescupori in different ways, so one perosn's Rhescopous II is another's III!  Confusiing!  Depends upon whom you are following in cataloguing.  Yours is quite a nice coin--most of these from this period are either very poorly struck, corroded, or generally damaged--it was not a good alloy!

  Thank you for this amazing information I will do some more research. Thank you for adding that the coin is a nice coin I thought it looked in decent condition and just loved the reverse as it was so different to anything I have in my collection