I think that because my
poor English we aren't able to understand each other. Sorry, it is my fault.
You think it isn't a Iota-Chi, but you think it is a
star.
I think it isn't a Iota-Chi, but I think it is a simplified
Chi-Rho.
So, when you explain why for you this symbol isn't a Iota-Chi, I agree with you! And these sentences are what I was looking for: "To the
virtus coin the big dot above is the
Achilles heal. To be properly formed the Iota-chi is uniform at all points. That makes it’s form a mistake not an example of proof" and "The Iota-Chi is formed with all protrusions equal with or without “dots”, at least outside of numismatic use."
My first question was: Is it a Iota-Chi or a
Chi-Rho? You have explained in a great way to me why it isn't a Iota Chi.
But I don't agree with you when you explain that it is a
star. After I have excluded that it is a Iota-Chi, for me it is a simplified
Chi-Rho. I think it is normal that there are different ways of thought about the same topic
And I don't want to try to make you change your mind.
I'd like to explain why I'm not surprise to see an "ipotetical"
christian symbol on coins of
Licinius I and II, but it is difficult and it would be off topic. There was a "political" use of these
symbols and they don't reflect the real conversion of the ruler...
It was a
good exchange of opinions and I am happy for it. I
hope that it was the same for you. And thanks to have tried to understand my English