>>26892
But the enamel disk of Michael isn't fit into it's place. All the icons have a socket, especially made for the icon but his is bigger than the socket and it got riveted to the crown. Moreover even a dilettant like me can see it's differences in style compared to the other enamel plates. Conclusion: it's not original for this item. No?
How historians deal with this situation? They largely ignore it, they found a plausible explanation and call it a day. Not everyone tho. Ofc those who believe in some alternative origin - it was Attila's crown, or persian made - don't like this explanation; but there are other acknowledged researchers with legit background and published results (like the one whom I mentioned in the post here >>26844) who also see the Michael icon's secondary placement so they reached for other explanations.