| Author |
 Replies: 23 / Views: 2,858 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3446 Posts |
On second thought it may actually be closer to the era in question. I am not good at dating these but it might at least fall in the lifetime of the 'Galilean' which is what I assume you are hoping ! Someone else can tell you more than I .
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
579 Posts |
Shouldn't there be more of a date on the right field of the reverse? I don't know much about Tyre shekels but an LG date would put it at 125/4 wouldn't it? I thought L was just a designator of the date since "L" was Lambda in the greek alphabet which had a different character
|
|
New Member
 Lebanon
23 Posts |
I think it is 50-70 BC not sure though.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
4208 Posts |
Other issues beginning with L and with similar placement/size/font are all around 100BC, so I think this ones pretty early.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5155 Posts |
L = means year.
"G" Gamma = yr 3. So... 126 BC = 3 yrs is 123/2 BC. A very early Tyre Shekel. I'd say you would be good at around $ 150 - $ 200 (high end)for the non serious collector.
|
|
New Member
Lebanon
23 Posts |
btw, the head is that of Melkarth = Tyrian god (Hercules)
|
|
New Member
Lebanon
23 Posts |
mmm thank you Ancientnoob for the info, but I didn't get how the date is computed :S
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
4208 Posts |
They have a different dating system in which 126 is year zero. Apparently, G (which is the greek letter gamma here) means 3 years. So, 3 in their dating system is 126BC + 3 years, which makes 123BC.
Im not sure about $150 with such extensive damage, but some people go nuts for this stuff.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
579 Posts |
When counting is it three years from the date so wouldn't 126/5 be year 1 125/4 year 2 124/3 Year 3? Sorry I know it is just silly semantics but I am still getting my head around dating most of the time.
Would they have referred it as "year zero" I mean if the calendar begins in 126/5 then that would logically have been year 1 wouldn't it?
|
|
New Member
Lebanon
23 Posts |
Ohh I see.. Thanks BenByfield !
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23731 Posts |
 to the community As the others have said the second coin is real. However I have my doubts on the first one. would need to see clearer pictures of both sides of the coin. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1812 Posts |
Quote:
but I dont mind broken coins Did I hear someone say "broken coins"  |
|
Moderator
Australia
16873 Posts |
Quote:
When counting is it three years from the date so wouldn't 126/5 be year 1 125/4 year 2 124/3 Year 3? Sorry I know it is just silly semantics but I am still getting my head around dating most of the time.
Would they have referred it as "year zero" I mean if the calendar begins in 126/5 then that would logically have been year 1 wouldn't it? Correct. The ancients had no concept of "year zero"; very little concept of zero at all, as their numeral systems usually demonstrate. Greek philosophers had a field day debating whether zero was a number or not. The first day of reign of a new ruler or founding of a city was Day 1 of Year 1. For the same reason, the BC/AD calendar does not have a "year zero" between 1 BC and AD 1. Therefore, this coin dated Year 3 of the Tyrian calendar would correlate to 124/123 BC; because their Day 1 of Year 1 occurred partway through our year 126 BC, Tyrian years do not have a precise one-for-one correlation with our years. Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
|
|
New Member
Lebanon
23 Posts |
Does anyone know if it's legal to buy such coins in Lebanon?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5155 Posts |
No idea about Lebanon's laws, But I just realized I calculated wrong....Whiz/Sap you guys are right I just counted on my fingers and yall are right....D'oh!
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 23 / Views: 2,858 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 06/06/2013 10:52 am
