The author (RP) of this web site first became interested in the published attribution of the Coinex hoard because the results reported for coins E (Sv1424) changed them from Ptolemy VI (after 180 BC) to Ptolemy V (c. 200 BC). Such an assignment conflicts with well established attributions (derived from identity of control marks, cornucopia symbols, and two-eagle reverse types) that place coins D and E to after 180 BC. (See Part 1.) The assignments of coins D and E were also contrary to attributions based on evidence from the Corinth and Saqqâra hoards.
An inquiry to the authors of the published attribution led to an extensive exchange of information and views (with CL) that were initially very helpful. However, RP became convinced that there were serious errors of method (and therefore results) in the published attribution.
Eventually, RP produced a manuscript giving an alternative method (and results) of attribution and this was submitted (December 2002) for publication in the Numismatic Chronicle. CL declined to comment further on the manuscript and stated that, if asked, she would not serve as a referee.
The referee report from the NC was negative and contained ideas and conclusions about the different results without mentioning the differences in methods of attribution. The report tended to be "hostile", a descriptive word later used by the editor.
Rebuttals were supplied to the editor (for the referee) and these included a request to compare the differing methods of attribution. No comments on the rebuttals were received.
In response to a request, the editor agreed to send a revised manuscript to a new referee for the following year.