Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Expert Authentication - Accurate Descriptions - Reasonable Prices - Coins From Under $10 To Museum Quality Rarities Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Support Our Efforts To Serve The Classical Numismatics Community - Shop At Forum Ancient Coins

New & Reduced


Author Topic: Attributing Coins - best way to cite references?  (Read 7231 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline peterpil19

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1059
    • Ancient Coin Traders
Attributing Coins - best way to cite references?
« on: June 16, 2017, 08:30:03 am »
Dear all,

I am posting this on this board as this question may be useful to new ancient coin collectors.

I would like to seek some clarification on the most conventional way to cite references when attributing a coin. In particular, when to use var. or cf. and when to use f or ff. I have read the relevant numiswiki entries on attributing coins and definitions of var. and ff, a thread in 2013(?) on this subject and the article by Reid Goldsborough on the attribution of greek coins: http://coinsguide.reidgold.com/attribution.html

I have noticed a level of inconsistency from dealer to dealer and listing to listing and this has caused me to question my own understanding of properly citing references.

I propose to use King Philip II bronze 'young man / horseman' coinage for the purposes of my question as I am collecting this series and have a reasonably level of familiarity with them. All coinage in this series is similar but for a number of differences, which to the best of my quick review of several references in preparation of my questions, include:

1. head on obverse:
    a. facing right
    b. facing left
2. horseman on reverse:
    a.  advancing right
    b. advancing left
3. control mark on the obverse
4. type of control mark on the reverse:
    a. monogram
    b. letter
    b. symbol
    c. symbol and monogram
5. location of control mark on reverse:
    a. underneath the horse
    b. in front of the horse
5. horseman wearing kausia
6. die-axes
7. weights

SNG Copenhagen (volume 2, part 9) lists this series at 581-617. The coins are separated into 4 groups.  The first group (581-609)has the obverse facing right (including those with a control mark on the obverse), horseman advancing right and reverses comprising different control marks. The second group (610-612) has the horseman wearing a kausia. The third group (613-15) has the same reverses as the second group but with without the horseman wearing a kausia. The 4th and last group (616-617) is described as the "same " but with the horseman advancing left and no kausia.  Presumably in the case of the 4th group it is referring to all of the above types - unclear to me from the plates if the horseman is wearing a kausia and there are no examples on acsearch.info to verify.

SNG Alpha Bank lists a larger number of these coins and breaks them down into more finite groups than SNG Copenhagen but I will not list them out here.

Sear's Greek Coins and their Values lists 3 individual coins from this series at 6696-6699. 6696 is head right, horseman right, barleycorn beneath; 6697 is similar but with a race-torch; 6698 is similar but with a HP monogram.

The Handbook of Greek Coinage Series (HGCS), Volume 3, lists this series at 881-885. 881 (head right, horse right, thunderbolt below), 882 (head right, letter to left and right on obverse, various listed monogram or symbols, below), 883 (head right, horse left, spearhead below), 884 (head left, letter to left or right on obverse, various listed monograms or symbols, below), 885 (head left, horse left, monogram or lion head below).


Questions:

Let us assume we have a coin which is head facing right, no letter on obverse, horseman facing right, symbol underneath. Let us assume the symbol is not found in the references above.

1. When should var. be used and when should cf. be used?

I understand in principle that var. is for closely related coins but which might have small differences whereas cf. is for coins which have some similarity but might have more fundamental differences. But what does this mean in practice?  Is it relevant to how the reference has recognised the differences in how it has chosen to group them (e.g. 4 groups in SNG Cop.) and therefore picking a group which is the most similar?

Which of the differences listed above would qualify as a var. as opposed to requiring cf. to be used? For example, is head facing right a var. of a listing for the same coin but with head facing left, or should cf. be used in that case? What about letter vs. symbol, or symbol to the right or underneath the horse?

Is a different die-axis a var.? I sometimes find the same coin but with a different die-axis to the one in SNG. Or is die-axis not significant enough to point out as a difference to the one being referenced?
Where there are multiple coins with the same die-axis with weight being the only difference, is it appropriate to reference the coin with a similar weight, or should the entire series with the same die-axis be referenced? I do not think I have ever seen a different die-axis pointed out in a listing before, but thought I should still check.

2. When should f or ff be used and must it be used only in conjunction with cf.?

I understand that f means this page or number and the one after it, and ff, means this page / number and all which follow of the same type. Reid Goldsborough's article reads to me to suggest that f or ff follows cf. Can it follow var.? Why do some list it out after a coin without cf.?

For example, what would SNG Cop. 610 ff mean? Does it simply mean SNG Cop. 610-612, which would not make sense in this instance without a cf. or var. given that 610-612 differ, but would make sense if they were actually 2 examples of the same type of coin?

Does ff mean the same kind in the group according to how the particular reference has chosen to group the coins. For example, is SNG Cop. 581 ff mean 581-609  (Group 1) or does it mean 581-617 (All Groups)?

Can ff follow var. For instance Sear 6696 ff var. (note difference)?

3.  What is the preferred way to cite a general reference like Sear or HGCS?

When citing a 'general' reference like Sear or HGCS, where the coin often does not match the one listed, is it sufficient to simply cite the first Sear reference which appears for that type of coin on the assumption that everyone knows Sear or HGCS is not intended to cover all variants? Or do you cite all numbers which are similar to the coin?. Do you use var. or cf.?

In the case of the coin above, for Sear, is it Sear 6696-6698, Sear 6696, Sear 6696 var. (note re differences), cf. Sear 6696 ff, Sear 6696-9 ff? For HGCS, is it HGCS 881-5, HGCS 881-5 var. (note), cf. HGCS 881 ff, HGCS 882 (which closest matches the description to my hypothetical coin),HGCS 882 var., or cf. HGCS 882?

4. What is the preferred way to cite the name of a reference?

I notice differences when looking at online catalogues or in acsearch. info so perhaps I have answered my own question. For example, some say SNG Cop. or SNG Copenhagen. Some say "Sear", whereas wildwinds uses SG. For British Museum (Greek or Roman) whereas some say BMC some say BMCRE (for Roman). In the above cases, some reference the volume or part number as well.

I hope I have illustrated the points above on which I am seeking clarification.

I do not expect anyone to answer all the sub-questions above (but please feel free to do so). They are intended to help clarify the intention of the primary questions (numbered).

Apologies if this is comprehensively covered somewhere but I could not find answers to the above questions.

Peter

Offline Molinari

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 4549
  • My defeat, if understood, should be my glory
Re: Attributing Coins - best way to cite references?
« Reply #1 on: June 16, 2017, 08:53:05 am »
In terms of #1: Use "var." if indeed it is a different variety of the same type.  Use cf., if, for instance, it was almost the same type but Apollo were facing the opposite direction.

For example: Apollo left, corn ear below/ Horse right, corn ear above.  Unlisted, but cf. SNG XXX (Apollo right, corn ear below/ Horse left, corn ear above). The cf. here means upon comparison you can infer that it is probably from the same mint, but the orientation of the types was switched (sometimes you can't infer so much from a cf.).  Var. would be if the type was the exact same except instead of a corn ear it was a lightning bolt, or something.

At least that is my understanding.

Nick

Offline Molinari

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 4549
  • My defeat, if understood, should be my glory
Re: Attributing Coins - best way to cite references?
« Reply #2 on: June 16, 2017, 08:59:50 am »
For number #2: I can't recall ever seeing someone use "f" or "ff" in a coin's attribution.  I would only use that in a narrative or notes in which I'm referring to an argument.  e.g. "See Rutter, Campanian Coinages, p. 292ff".

Offline Molinari

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 4549
  • My defeat, if understood, should be my glory
Re: Attributing Coins - best way to cite references?
« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2017, 09:02:06 am »
For #3: I recommend Sear XXX-XXX var. if it is a variety not listed, or Cf. Sear XXX-XXX if it fits the rationale I described above.

Offline Molinari

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 4549
  • My defeat, if understood, should be my glory
Re: Attributing Coins - best way to cite references?
« Reply #4 on: June 16, 2017, 09:05:03 am »
For number 4, just be consistent. I usually follow CNG's abbreviations (though they aren't always consistent!). If you were writing an essay, cite it fully according to a manual of style then, in parenthesis, say something like "Hereafter BMC". If writing a book, you should have a section that spells out the abbreviations you use, either in the beginning or as part of the bibliography.

Offline PeterD

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1483
  • omnium curiositatum explorator
    • Historia
Re: Attributing Coins - best way to cite references?
« Reply #5 on: June 16, 2017, 09:18:52 am »
"cf" just means "compare". See the Wikipedia entry:

The abbreviation cf. (short for the Latin: confer, meaning "compare") is used in writing to refer the reader to other material to make a comparison with the topic being discussed. It is used to form a contrast, for example: "Abbott (2010) found supportive results in her memory experiment, unlike those of previous work (cf. Zeller & Williams, 2007)." It is recommended that "cf." be used only to suggest a comparison, and the word "see" be used to point to a source of information.

"f" just means page (singular) and "ff" means pages (plural).
Peter, London

Historia: A collection of coins with their historical context https://www.forumancientcoins.com/historia

Offline Joe Sermarini

  • Owner, President
  • FORVM STAFF
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 12103
  • All Coins Guaranteed for Eternity.
    • FORVM ANCIENT COINS
Re: Attributing Coins - best way to cite references?
« Reply #6 on: June 16, 2017, 09:25:46 am »
Note all the blue text below links to NumisWiki or other relevant pages.

1. var. means "variety" and cf. means "compare [with]." Both abbreviations link automatically to NumisWiki anytime they appear here on the discussion board or in the Forum shop.

A variety is the same type, usually from the same mint and usually the struck at or near the same time, with some small difference, usually a control symbol or magistrate. Different busts, including direction, can also be listed as a variant, especially if they are from the same issue from the same mint.

A different die axis would rarely be identified as a variety.  I have never even considered it, but if a type ALWAYS has the same die axis and an example didn't, you might consider calling it a variety.

cf. means "compare with." It is used when those words are appropriate. It is particularly useful for an unpublished type. For an unpublished denomination, you could cf. another denomination from the same issue with the same types. For an unpublished mint, you could cf. with the same type from another mint. You could cf. a coin with an identical obverse but a different reverse. This list of possibilities is long.

2. f. and ff. mean "and following." f. is singular, applying only to the next following. So, 23 f. means 23 & 24, and 23 ff. means 23, 24... cf. 23 f. means compare with 23 & 24. 23 ff. var. means the type is a variant of 23 and following. f. and ff. can also apply to page numbers. There should be a space between the number and the f. or ff. to prevent confusion with a possible alpha-numeric catalog number (23f for example).

3. There is not always a universal way to abbreviate a references. Obviously, I prefer the abbreviations given in NumisWiki and the Forum shop. I tend to pick the most popular short abbreviations.  I never use Sear.  There are too many books by Sear.  I use: SRCV, SRCV I, SRCV II, SRCV III, SRCV IV, SRCV V, SGCV I, SGCV II, SGICV, SBCV, Sear CRI... For Hoover's HGC, Forum uses HGC 2, HGC 4, HGC 5, etc. Click on the links to learn more about each of these references.

4. Same as above. SNG Cop. certainly fits better on a tag than SNG Copenhagen.  For BMC, again there are many British Museum catalogs - BMCRR, BMCRE, BMC Italy (for the Greek, the volume is identified by Forum with the first region named in the title), BMC Celtic, BMC Vandals, Wroth BMC.
Joseph Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM ANCIENT COINS

Offline peterpil19

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1059
    • Ancient Coin Traders
Re: Attributing Coins - best way to cite references?
« Reply #7 on: June 16, 2017, 11:06:06 am »
Thank you Joe, Molinari and Peter D for your considered responses.

Your responses have addressed exactly what I hoped to learn.
 
Joe, I particularly like the way you cite attributions in the FORVM shop. Always consistent and looks as though great care is taken.

Peter

Offline peterpil19

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1059
    • Ancient Coin Traders
Re: Attributing Coins - best way to cite references?
« Reply #8 on: June 18, 2017, 11:17:32 pm »
Dear All,

Could I kindly ask, for my continued learning, for your feedback on how I have described the attribution of a Lysimachos Tetradrachm. The coin is the same as the ones listed in the references below other than for a different monogram in the right field (there are 3 monograms on this particular coin). I found the monogram in the right field in the exergue of a different coin in SNG Alpha Bank.

I chose an example which puts into practice essentially all of the above in one attribution. In particular does it read straight forward or would it make more sense to insert "(same)" after each var. rather than state "(all same)" at the end.

Thompson 207 var. (monogram in right field); Müller 539 var.; Meydancikkale 2673-2674 var.; SNG Copenhagen 1122 var.; SNG Alpha Bank 977 var.; SNG Berry 421 var. (all same); cf. SGCV II, 6814 ff.; cf. SNG Alpha Bank 979 (for monogram in exergue)

Thank you,

Peter


Offline Joe Sermarini

  • Owner, President
  • FORVM STAFF
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 12103
  • All Coins Guaranteed for Eternity.
    • FORVM ANCIENT COINS
Re: Attributing Coins - best way to cite references?
« Reply #9 on: June 19, 2017, 08:23:57 am »
I am often restricted in by space in the database, which is limited in order to fit on the tag. If you have no limit on space, you don't have as much need to be brief. To save space, for the identical varieties, I might put (all var. diff. monogram r.) after the last var. I try to explain cf. references too, so I would want to have something in parentheses after SGCV II 6814 ff. I don't have time to actually compare the Alpha Bank reference with the coin right now. From the note, it is not clear to my why this is cf. instead of a var.
Joseph Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM ANCIENT COINS

Offline Molinari

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 4549
  • My defeat, if understood, should be my glory
Re: Attributing Coins - best way to cite references?
« Reply #10 on: June 19, 2017, 08:56:39 am »
I find "all same" confusing.  What do you mean by that?  They are all the same variety as each other but not as your coin?

It also appears from your description that your variety is unpublished.  You should certainly include that information!

Like Joe said, you aren't limited by space so the more information the better.

Offline peterpil19

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1059
    • Ancient Coin Traders
Re: Attributing Coins - best way to cite references?
« Reply #11 on: June 19, 2017, 09:04:12 pm »
I am often restricted in by space in the database, which is limited in order to fit on the tag. If you have no limit on space, you don't have as much need to be brief. To save space, for the identical varieties, I might put (all var. diff. monogram r.) after the last var. I try to explain cf. references too, so I would want to have something in parentheses after SGCV II 6814 ff. I don't have time to actually compare the Alpha Bank reference with the coin right now. From the note, it is not clear to my why this is cf. instead of a var.

Dear Joe,

Thank you, that is great feedback.

I listed as variants those examples which have 2 of 3 monograms the same.  Re the cf. SNG Alpha Bank 979, I included it because it is a coin which has the exact same monogram as the 3rd which was different in the aforementioned examples, but in a different location - the exergue instead of the right field and without the other 2 monograms.  Whether that coin is best described as var. instead goes back to my original question on when do you draw a line and call something a variant?. In the case of these tetradrachms, all share the same basic features.  To my knowledge the only differences are the symbols and monograms which appear on the reverse (left field, right field, on throne, in exergue) and for one coin only which I have seen, a letter (K) under the bust on the obverse.

Therefore do you consider that all these coins variants of each other? In which case even a reference to the ones listed in Sear should also be var. not cf.?


I find "all same" confusing.  What do you mean by that?  They are all the same variety as each other but not as your coin?

It also appears from your description that your variety is unpublished.  You should certainly include that information!

Like Joe said, you aren't limited by space so the more information the better.

Dear Molinari,

Noted and agreed, I much prefer the way Joe handles it above.  Re unpublished is it not a big call to make given the number of references which exist and presumably most do not have access to? Although I am searching as many references I can for my personal enjoyment, I still do not have access to all of them.  At what point does one label their coin "unpublished" or is that a matter of subjective opinion? Or should one always caveat any description of a coin being "unpublished" by summarising what they have and have not searched?

Thank you to both of you, this is very useful to my learning and I hope to others.

Peter

Offline Joe Sermarini

  • Owner, President
  • FORVM STAFF
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 12103
  • All Coins Guaranteed for Eternity.
    • FORVM ANCIENT COINS
Re: Attributing Coins - best way to cite references?
« Reply #12 on: June 20, 2017, 06:26:52 am »
If the only difference is control symbols, I would call them all varieties.
Joseph Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM ANCIENT COINS

Offline Molinari

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 4549
  • My defeat, if understood, should be my glory
Re: Attributing Coins - best way to cite references?
« Reply #13 on: June 20, 2017, 08:44:40 am »
I would put "apparently unpublished", until you've checked all the relevant literature.   I think it is a good idea to list all the references you checked, too (even for your own records).

The var./cf. in terms of monogram placement is more difficult and depends on the reference type.  So a handbook, like Sear or Hoover, lists by type and sometimes includes the different varieties in the description. If those are numbered or lettered, I would include that, so, e.g., Sear 299c, but if it does not differentiate by numbers or letters, use Sear 299 var.  HN Italy goes by type too but often lists the different varities within the description.  But the SNGs are collections, so I would probably use cf. in those cases, meaning compare to this coin in SNG Cop., and then in parenthesis explain the difference, or, alternatively, list the group of coins in the SNG that are the same type and put "var." afterward, e.g., SNG Cop. 290-99 var. You could also do just SNG Cop. 299 var. and explain the specific difference (so don't just say "monogram", say "monogram placement").

Then there are books like Calciati's CNS, which is a corpus, meaning he included all known specimens.  In that case, you could say, for example, CNS I, 299, 1 or CNS I, 299, 1/1-13, which would mean your coin is in Calciati book I, on page 299, and is the same as type number 1, of which he includes the thirteen examples known to him at the time.  If it were one of those exact coins, you'd of course say that (so CNS I, 299, 1/11 (this coin)).  

The reason I bring up Calciati is to illustrate that there isn't a simple way and it very often depends on the type of reference you are citing (Handbook (Sear), Reference Book (HN Italy), Museum Collection (SNG), Corpus (Calciati)).  There are web references, too. And that would change based on the database or webpage.  So for the French National Collection, I would use BnF and then the inventory number, which may or may not correspond to a printed catalog (BnF 1996.12.3 vs. BnF Luynes 599, in which the latter is published in a print book that catalogs the De Luynes collection of the BnF). Sale catalogs are another type.

Are there any other types or references that I'm missing?

On a side note, and I say this from time to time, you local library can probably get you any reference you want through interlibrary loan.  I am a librarian and use ILL for coin books all the time.  On very rare occasions you may have to pay a small fee, if the only lending library around is a private institution that doesn't participate in free ILL.

Offline peterpil19

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1059
    • Ancient Coin Traders
Re: Attributing Coins - best way to cite references?
« Reply #14 on: June 20, 2017, 08:47:23 pm »
Hi Molinari,

I did not know you were a librarian! I used to spend lots of time in libraries. I am an avid reader.

To clarify my understanding on your point about Sear. For Sear which shows, by memory, 3 discrete examples but does not describe them as being part of a series (only alludes to it at the end saying there are many types, again by memory), is it SGCV II, 6814 ff var. (different control marks) or is it SGCV II 6114-6116 var. (different control marks) or is it simply SGCV II 6114 var. (different control marks).

I have used the first one because Sear lists 3 examples but does not identify any one of them as being part of a series and I thought it would be more helpful to show that there is more than 1 example.  But is it equally as acceptable to simply list the first example in Sear and reference that as the var.?

Subject to that, I think this has answered all loose ends in my understanding though I am sure there will be more...!




Offline Molinari

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 4549
  • My defeat, if understood, should be my glory
Re: Attributing Coins - best way to cite references?
« Reply #15 on: June 20, 2017, 08:52:52 pm »
I like the second one, if they are all the same type but different varieties and it isn't clear which one yours would fall into.

Offline peterpil19

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1059
    • Ancient Coin Traders
Re: Attributing Coins - best way to cite references?
« Reply #16 on: June 21, 2017, 01:15:03 am »
Got it.  +++

One last question and it is a really basic one - once I should have asked at the beginning. :-[

When describing the differences for a var. or cf. is it from the perspective of the coin in the reference, or the coin being attributed? My understanding is that it is from the perspective of the coin in the reference. This might not really matter in a lot of cases but take my example below where I want to compare the ΩK monogram (far right field) with a coin which has it but on its exergue.

Is it clear that "this coin'" means the coin in the reference, not the coin in my hand?

cf. SNG Alpha Bank 979 (for ΩK monogram, found in exergue of this coin)

Thanks again to both of you.

This is highly informative and I am sincerely grateful for the time you have put into your responses.

Peter

Offline Molinari

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 4549
  • My defeat, if understood, should be my glory
Re: Attributing Coins - best way to cite references?
« Reply #17 on: June 21, 2017, 07:10:24 am »
That's a good question.  The description in the parenthesis usually refers to the coin in the catalog, or in some cases it could refer to both (e.g. if it just says "monogram"). I think you could reduce yours to "cf. SNG Alpha Bank 979 (ΩK monogram in exergue)" and it would be clear to the reader that yours is the same type but the monogram is in a different place, and that the SNG Alpha Bank coin has the monogram in the exergue.  This would be even more clear since the description of your coin's reverse would say where the monogram is (so "in right field", etc.)..

"SNG Alpha Bank 979 var. (ΩK monogram in exergue)" would also work, meaning it is just like SNG Alpha Bank 979 except your variety places the monogram somewhere other than the exergue.  I think I prefer cf. with collection references the more I think about it, especially if there are many varieties of the same type listed and you can find one that is really close, like the same monogram just in a different place.

Offline dougsmit

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2126
    • Ancient Greek & Roman Coins
Re: Attributing Coins - best way to cite references?
« Reply #18 on: June 21, 2017, 12:37:54 pm »
As I see many of these questions, we have to apply the matter to the context of the use.  CF simply means 'compare to'.  That could mean a coin that is very similar or one that is obviously quite different but that sheds light on the situation.  For example, when listing a coin of Diocletian issued by Carausius using a reference that separates coins by rulers so that the similar Carausius coins would not be on that same page, you might CF the listing to Carausius and Maximianus issues.  I read CF as short for "You might benefit by looking at:".

In some parts of RIC a matter like letter spacing changes the RIC number but other places, it does not.  To me, the worst example of this are the coins that separate FELTEMPR  EPARATIO from FELTEMP REPARATIO while legionary denarii of Septimius Severus from LEGXIIIIGEMMV come with a wide variation of separations between the parts of XIIII but all get one RIC number.  The way I see it, you can add var. to references that made such distinctions but your coin is different but should not bother if the original author did not separate out such things as spacing.  Similarly, some legends add punctuation which causes a catalog change while others drop dots wherever thy please.  You need not assume that your coin is special because of the dot when the likely truth is that the author did not care. 

I was always bothered most by Sear listings that gave a mintmark listing for the coin shown causing evry owner of a falling horseman with a different mintmark to think his coin was rare or fake.  Here we have to use a lot of var. listings.  Cohen did not bother with mintmarks so we rarely have to ammend the listing.  Adapting to context is a requirement.

BMCRE is a list of specimens in their collection.  In some cases they own a doze of the same coin. Sometimes we can find an exact match to the letter spacing and all other details but sometimes our best answer would be a listing like BMC 1234ff or BMC 1234-1245 var.  There will always be different ways of handling such matters.  I'm not sure there is going to be a 'best' way that will not prove awkward in some circumstances. 

How do you handle a coin that is either RIC 1234 or 1236 but can't possibly be 1235 because that coin belongs to a different ruler?  A dot missing or misplaced or one that could be a star (if only it were all on flan) can make it hard to give a number that is 100% certain.  How do you handle a RIC number that is illustrated by a coin that does not match the description?  There are too many questions to allow us to sweat the small stuff.  We do the best we can.

Offline peterpil19

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1059
    • Ancient Coin Traders
Re: Attributing Coins - best way to cite references?
« Reply #19 on: June 21, 2017, 08:28:55 pm »
Hi Doug,

Your comment about "adapting to context" makes a lot of sense and is very useful to remember.

Interesting you raised the example of the white spacing. I had wondered whether different white spacing would merit a "var." or not.

When you give the example below of  BMC 1234ff for where an exact match cannot be found, are you saying you can simply reference the "series" in BMCRE and not have to put a "var." in front? Or would you still put a "var." to alert the reader that the coin is different in one or more respects from those examples listed in the "series"?

Peter

Offline Joe Sermarini

  • Owner, President
  • FORVM STAFF
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 12103
  • All Coins Guaranteed for Eternity.
    • FORVM ANCIENT COINS
Re: Attributing Coins - best way to cite references?
« Reply #20 on: June 21, 2017, 08:46:30 pm »
When 1234ff means 1234 and the series following, I think it should be 1234 ff., not 1234ff.
Joseph Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM ANCIENT COINS

Offline peterpil19

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1059
    • Ancient Coin Traders
Re: Attributing Coins - best way to cite references?
« Reply #21 on: June 23, 2017, 09:59:47 pm »
Thanks Joe,

I am starting to feel like Columbo with my follow up "one more question(s)"!

So my understanding is that if you are referencing the entire series you can use ff. after the numerical reference.

Taking Doug's example of BMCRE however which lists individual examples, if BMCRE does not have an exact match in the series, is it still better to use a var. following the ff. to alert a potential reader to the fact that there is not an exact match in that series? That would be more precise than just directing the reader to the series?

Also, when listing out those references in which the coin could NOT be found as I see others do at the end of their attributions, using the " - " following the name of the reference, do you do so even if technically the reference might still include the series, just not a similar enough variant. For example, in the case of Philip II, where a "prow" control mark is not to be found in SNG Cop., would you state "SNG Cop. - " after citing the other references which do have it. Or would you still describe it as SNG Cop. 581-609 var. (control mark)? I think stating "SNG Cop - " has the potential to cause confusion as readers might think that it contains none of the Philip II bronze series... however I have seen it used in this way.

Thanks

Peter

Offline Joe Sermarini

  • Owner, President
  • FORVM STAFF
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 12103
  • All Coins Guaranteed for Eternity.
    • FORVM ANCIENT COINS
Re: Attributing Coins - best way to cite references?
« Reply #22 on: June 24, 2017, 06:37:48 am »
If a reference includes a series of the same type but none with matching controls (or some other variation), yes, I will use ff. var. and explain what is different in parenthesis.

The more exact matches I find in references, the less likely I am to use ff. var. for the other references that have varieties but not an exact match. I don't have a hard rule and I am certainly not consistent. Because my total space to list references is constrained, sometimes I must decide between how many references to list vs. detail for each reference. By not listing ff. var., I can show more of the references I have examined. Showing a long list of references that do not list the specific variety can give an indication of the rarity of the variety. Especially for a type that is common overall, that is better information.
Joseph Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM ANCIENT COINS

Offline peterpil19

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1059
    • Ancient Coin Traders
Re: Attributing Coins - best way to cite references?
« Reply #23 on: June 25, 2017, 05:11:15 am »
Thank you Joe,

You approach has a lot of logic.  I think I will cite e.g. "SNG Copenhagen -" , when there is already a specific match in another reference, but still make general reference (with var. if appropriate) to Sear / HGCS as that can be useful to those who do not have the other references.

I think I have run out of questions now...

Peter

 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity