In the published method of attribution, hoard coins A, B and C were given the original, i.e., pre-reform, dates for Ptolemies II, III and IV (see Part 6). This would have been correct had there **not** been, at some unknown later time, a monetary reform that countermarked coins (C) and also accepted others for continued circulation (A and B) . The reform changed the date of coins C (see Part 4) and also changed the effective dates of coins A and B in the hoard. After the reform, the new date of the countermark on coins C is the same new date for reissue of coins A and B by the monetary reform. Since coins A, B, and C in the hoard were changed by the reform, their new date must be determined independently from the *original* dates of coins A, B and C (see Part 6 and also Part 5). The assumption that coins A, B and C are simply coins of Ptolemies II, III, and IV is the fundamental error of the published method.

It is unfortunate that, to obtain the date of countermarking, only the original dates of coins C were considered and thus only a date (i.e., c.206 BC) late in the time of Ptolemy IV was obtained (see Part 6a). It was overlooked that there are coins of Ptolemies V and VI that have been countermarked; these show that the countermark must have been applied after 180 BC.

This error in dating the countermark fits into the fundamental error of assigning pre-reform dates to coins A and B and resulted in a gap between coins A, B, C and coins D and E. The published method therefore claimed that it was necessary to redate coins D and E to the times of Ptolemy IV and Ptolemy V (see Parts 3 and 6b).

The published dating of coins C, D and E is inconsistent with attributions based on control marks, symbols (cornucopia), and hoards. (See Part 1.)