derniere achat de Septime17300

Bonjour tout le monde
Pour le bien du topic " derniere achat de Septime17300" il serait peut-être bien qu'un modo déplace dans le bar tout ce qui concerne "les règlements de comptes" (ou les supprimer éventuellement car hors sujet).
Après c'est normal que l'on ne s’apprécie pas forcement tous surtout quand une communauté grandi mais on doit au moins arriver a se respecter ou sinon éviter ceux que l'on n’apprécie moins sans avoir besoin de jeter de l'huile sur le feu car sinon tout le monde sera perdant...
Je vous connais très peu tous et seulement par l’intermédiaire du forum ou e-mail et trouve que vous apportez tous beaucoup chacun dans vos domaines et a votre manière mais vos histoires perso devraient rester vos histoires perso...
Si chacun met un petit peu du siens on devrait y arriver, c'est dans l’intérêt de tous

... comme dirait l'autre il vaut mieux se perdre dans sa passion que de perdre sa passion... moi j'aime bien ces caracteres différents qui cherchent à s'entreprendre...n'est ce point le signe d'un forum qui vit...mais toujours avec respect évidemment...

mais il faut savoir aussi se limiter dans ses réactions & dans ses passions, sinon on perds le contrôle de ses émotions & l'on verse dans l'hybris!

Oui , passé un certain stade c'est l'hybris les gonades ........!!!!!

Mais alors menues les gonades, c'est le Mexicain qui va être content.

Briac a écrit:

1) Curtis cite la série RIC 127, 129-131. Le denier FELICITAS PVBLICA est le RIC 128 ne me dit pas qu'il n'y a pas la une volonté de ne pas le citer! c'est aussi claire que 1+1=2 donc la prochaine fois évite de dire des inepties et ouvre ton RIC ou relis les données du problème...

2) la période de prédilection de Curtis est la période des Sévères, il se borne donc a citer ce que les autres ont écrit, et bien entendu je lui suis reconnaissant de nous faire partager ces données mais cela ne change rien à la situation, il ne fait que répéter le travail des autres tu ne peux pas aller contre...

There is a remarkable disjunction in my opinion between (1) Briac's conviction that he is the world's leading authority on the coinage of Gordian III, who is approaching the material with a totally new kind of originality and insight, and (2) what Briac actually knows, which is comparatively little and often wrong.

In the discussion above, I have tried to correct Briac's obviously incorrect dating of the TR P III Horseman type to 240, struck all by itself as some kind of supernumerary special issue, and of the five other common denarius types, all undated, which Briac assigns to 241, a year later.

This is no original insight of Briac's, he is simply following Mattingly's misdating of the same types in RIC, but whereas Mattingly misinterpreted these denarii as a special marriage issue for Gordian's marriage to Tranquillina in 241, Briac throws out the idea that they might have been issued in connection with Gordian's departure on his campaign against the Persians.

When I pointed out that the mint was no longer striking common denarii in 241, and that the identical volumes of production of the Horseman type and the five undated types made it very probable that they were issued together in 240 between Mattingly's Issues 3 and 4, showing that for a brief time the mint discontinued the antoninianus and returned to the denarius as the standard silver coin, Briac had to admit the validity of my objections to his incorrect dating, and could find no factual evidence speaking against my chronology, which is of course not just mine, but Pink's and Elks', accepted by virtually all later numismatists in addition to myself.

However, Briac's conception of his own superiority (I suppose) prevented him from gratefully welcoming this very probable correction of his own (and Mattingly's) mistake, so instead he threw out every objection he could think of, designed to show that he was actually the superior scholar and I was merely passing on platitudes of the past, and neglecting crucial evidence to boot.

Objection 1. I have no physical evidence to confirm my arrangement of the types. But Briac has no evidence to confirm his conjecture either, and the evidence of when the mint struck common denarii (240 AD only), and how it structured its issues (six types in silver struck in the same or similar volumes), makes it extremely probable that when physical evidence does become available, it is going to support Pink's and my chronology, not Briac's and Mattingly's!

Objection 2. I have no original thoughts about the coinage of Gordian, but am merely parroting the views of earlier scholars whose works I have read. Briac, by implication, is the great original thinker, the forthcoming Einstein of the coinage of Gordian III. I leave it to other readers to assess the validity of this objection. I pointed out above that it is essential for scholarly progress in any field to have read the relevant earlier bibliography. Briac has not done so, so in this respect our future Einstein is still in elementary school!

Objection 3. I have deliberately suppressed the FELICITAS PVBLICA denarius. The implication is that this coin will refute my chronology, and I am therefore trying to conceal its existence from the reader. We have seen above the truth of the matter: I did indeed deliberately refrain from mentioning this type, because it is almost certainly an ancient forgery, and even if authentic would not contradict Pink's assignment of the five common undated types to 240 rather than 241. I omitted the coin not because it is deadly to my theory, but because it is irrelevant!

Ite missa est *



* : game over pour les non latinistes

Potator II a écrit:

Ite missa est

Coca-Cola is the best !

que les choses soient claires, (oui je sais ca fait pas diplomate mais ce n'est pas agressif!)

1)je ne me base pas sur les datations de Mattingly, j'ai simplement supposé les dates sur bases des traductions des titulatures comme je l'ai expliqué

2)je ne suis ni universitaire un un possible futur Einstein, je fais ce "travail" par passion et plaisir en ne considérant rien comme tout a fait absolu. J'ai également reconnu plusieurs erreurs et la validité des indices répétés par Curtis donc je ne penses pas avoir été spécialement négatif envers ces théories, je dis juste que ces théories peuvent être mises en doutes car elle manquent de preuves matériel pour les corroborer. Et pour rester dans le sujet, mes théories en manquent aussi donc je ne les affirme pas comme irréfutables non plus.

Tout l'intérêt de cette discussion était de développer 2 théories seulement vous avez interrompu cela avec des remarques infondées maintenant il n y a plus de plaisir a continuer...

IOVI, les dates de ta "sanction" sont illogiques, plus de 2 mois apres la dernière attaque, je ne parlais plus depuis le 14 juillet (tout le monde peut le vérifier avec l historique de mes mesages) et l'acces au MP m'a été bloqué entre le 11 (agamemnon peut confirmer vue que c'est lui qui m'a envoyé le dernier MP que j'ai reçu) et le 20 septembre (voir ci dessous ton commentaire). Cela faisait donc 2 mois que je ne parlais plus et le seul argument que tu as donné est ceci:



donc essaye d'être honnête envers les membres du forum et explique nous alors pourquoi un tel délais?

bonjour à tous,

je confirme avoir envoyé un mp à BRIAC mi septembre

j'espère que tout rentrera dans l'ordre ? Ce serait dommage d'en arriver là!

cordialement jean-marie
-

An idea occurred to me which I don't think I have had before, though it is so obvious that I will be surprised if I am really the first person to have thought of it.

In Mattingly's Issue 4, as the two dated types show, the mint struck both denarii and antoniniani in 240 (TR P III COS II), but antoniniani only from 241 on, until the end of the issue early in 243 (TR P IIII COS II - TR P VI COS II).

My idea: in 240, the two silver denominations were probably not struck simultaneously, but rather reflect a return to the antoninianus as the sole common denomination in silver, all of the denarii having been struck before that reform and all of the antoniniani thereafter.

The three earliest issuers of antoniniani, namely Caracalla from 215 to early 217, Macrinus briefly at the beginning of his reign, and Elagabalus for a year or so in 218-9, had continued the production of denarii simultaneously with that of the new denomination.

After Elagabalus, however, the two silver denominations seem to have become incompatible: the mint struck one or the other of them as the standard silver denomination, but not both together.

So Balbinus and Pupienus, following the practice of Elagabalus from 219 on, Severus Alexander, and Maximinus Thrax, began their reign striking denarii only, but then discontinued the denarius and struck only antoniniani at the end of their short reign. The reform was signalled not only by the larger module and the reappearance of the radiate crown on the obverse, but by the introduction of new reverse types showing clasped hands with six different legends, none of which of course ever appeared on denarii. About half of Pupienus' antoniniani and some rare bronzes call him MAXIMVS on the obverse, but none of his denarii include that epithet: apparently he decided to add this name to the coins only towards the end of the reign, some time after the antoninianus had supplanted the denarius as the sole regular silver denomination of the two emperors.

Gordian III at first followed the practice of Balbinus and Pupienus: the antoninianus was his only common silver coin in his Issues 1-3 of 238-early 240. At that time, however, Gordian apparently chose to revert to a coinage of denarii only, and struck the issue with TR P III Horseman and the five undated types that Mattingly and Briac erroneously attribute to the following year.

It is unlikely, then, that at the beginning of his next issue (Mattingly's Issue 4) Gordian produced denarii and antoniniani simultaneously: rather he struck the denarii first and then returned to the system based on antoniniani alone.

The Eauze Hoard figures for the successive dated types of 240 give us an approximate idea of how this succession of issues may have been spread across the year:

End of Issue 3, only one dated type (TR P III Emp. sacr.), 15 antoniniani.

TR P III Horseman issue, an average of 27.5 denarii, the equivalent of almost 14 antoniniani, for each of the six types.

Beginning of Issue 4, denarii only, 21 and 12 specimens, the equivalent of about 8 antoniniani, for the two dated types.

Ditto, but antoniniani only, 22 and 16 specimens for the same two dated types.

Assuming a more or less constant rate of silver-coinage production by value rather than by number of specimens, the conclusion of Issue 3, 27% of the production of 240, will have lasted from 10 Dec. 239 until c. middle March 240; the TR P III Horseman issue of denarii (25%), c. mid-March to mid-June; the denarius phase of early Issue 4 (14%), c. mid-June to early August; and finally the antoninianus phase of early Issue 4 (34%), c. early August-10 or 31 December. So the period when Gordian's mint was striking denarii rather than antoniniani as the standard denomination in silver may have lasted from approximately March-August 240.

In the Eauze hoard report, p. 245, the denarii of early Issue 4 are indeed listed before the antoniniani, so the authors might well have thought that they were struck first as I am proposing, though this is not explicitly stated, the treatment of this reign being very brief.

an intersting idea, I have no time to try to answer you now because of my job but I will do it this evening when I'll be back

la lecture de ces statistique est vraiment intéressante et cela peut appuyer l'hypothèse des sous émissions que je suspecte. Le type AETERNITATI AVG par exemple est émis en denier mais est toujours avec la même variante (Sol debout de face tête à gauche, le gras droit levé, un globe dans la main gauche et jambe droite pliée) alors que pour les sesterces et antoniniens, on trouve les 2 variantes de jambe pliée.

Le même genre de variantes apparaissent sur la majorité des types
VIRTVTI AVGVSTI en antoninien Hercule peut ou non porter une couronne de lauriers sur mais n'est jamais tête nue en denier,
IOVIS STATOR àdevient IOVI STATORI en antoninien mais reste toujours IOVIS STATOR en deniers
Seul LAETITIA AVG N émis dans les 2 divisions n'a pas encore de réelle variante reconnue et c'est bien la raison pour laquelle je ne parlais pas encore réellement de cette possible sous émission

cette analyse est vraiment plaisante, je ne sais si d'autres personnes l'ont développées avant vous mais cela ne me laisse presque plus la moindre raison de douter... Merci de nous avoir fait partager cette idée.

Mr Clay, why don't you develop this idea in an article for the second number of our journal?

Et Briac la sienne afin d'avoir les deux versions écrite en prenant tout le temps et tout le soin de poser les mots les plus justes, ce qui n'est pas toujours facile pour des commentaires sur un forum ?

non merci, j'ai déjà d'autres projets en cours

Un "up" pour Briac.