This
thread started with Enodia’s suggestion that we discuss the criteria which the best
gallery of the year should fulfill.
Quadrans raised the question of whether the best
gallery should, for example, show a broad interest and be encyclopedic, on the one hand, or focus on one
area, being specialized, on the other. Further, should the best
gallery be instructive or simply beautiful? I personally would answer these questions by seconding Enodia’s later suggestion that the best
gallery should not be just a
showcase but also a resource.
The notion that the best
gallery should be a resource appears to be echoed in numerous comments valuing organization and presentation, and, as peterpil19 mentioned, descriptions that are top notch from which you learn something about the coins.
If a resource, the best
gallery should
include, as Randygeki(h2) suggested, a focused
collection. I stress the word include because so many of us have galleries that contain a focus in one or more areas of specialization as well as a general mix of coins from other areas of interest in which we do not specialize.
And, if we are looking to recognize galleries (or those parts of galleries) that are resources, there is no reason not to recognize multiple galleries, based on their usefulness as resources in particular areas of
numismatics. Sam suggested that we recognize galleries by category, such as Ancient Greek,
Roman Republican;
Byzantine, and
Islamic. I like that idea, and would suggest adding
Roman Provincial;
Medieval European; and Eastern Coinages, all of which are well-represented by the
members of
FORVM.
Stkp
