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: When is a Variant a New Coin  (Read 2056 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tacitus

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 628
When is a Variant a New Coin
« on: July 26, 2020, 06:45:47 pm »
I see a lot of coins listed as variants of other coins.   Some seem to be completely different... Other times I see coins listed as different RIC or MER-RIC numbers yet seem to be almost identical.

So what makes a coin a variant and what makes it a different coin?

Offline *Alex

  • Tribunus Plebis 2022
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Etiam Iovis omnibus placere non possunt.
Re: When is a Variant a New Coin
« Reply #1 on: July 26, 2020, 08:03:52 pm »
The authors of the reference work concerned. Either the variant was unknown to the authors or the authors felt that the difference wasn't significant enough to warrant a separate reference number. Bear in mind that many of the reference works we use today were compiled many years ago before the digital age.

Alex

Offline Joe Sermarini

  • Owner, President
  • FORVM STAFF
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 12103
  • All Coins Guaranteed for Eternity.
    • FORVM ANCIENT COINS
Re: When is a Variant a New Coin
« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2020, 03:07:44 pm »
For me a variant should be from the same mint and issue. 
Joseph Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM ANCIENT COINS

Offline dwarf

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 180
Re: When is a Variant a New Coin
« Reply #3 on: August 08, 2020, 01:10:02 am »
There is a nice paper on this problem available on academia.eu

This link leads to the short English abstract
https://tinyurl.com/yxdlkj6y

This link to the download
https://tinyurl.com/y25n3ena

Have a nice day
Klaus



Offline Altamura

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2934
Re: When is a Variant a New Coin
« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2020, 12:50:26 pm »
... There is a nice paper on this problem available on academia.eu ...
I had it already on my hard disk for a while and now finally read it  :), thanks for the hint.

Cumbersome work to analyze that  :-\, but what a terminological mess  :).

Regards

Altamura


Offline Tacitus

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 628
Re: When is a Variant a New Coin
« Reply #5 on: September 11, 2020, 08:02:05 pm »
Well crap I do not speak French

Offline SC

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 6068
    • A Handbook of Late Roman Bronze Coin Types 324-395.
Re: When is a Variant a New Coin
« Reply #6 on: September 12, 2020, 08:02:05 am »
You are not really missing much. 

The article is not really a discussion of what constitutes a variant, it is an examination of the many terms used by numismatists for different "levels" - issues, series, emission, variation, etc. - how often each term is used, how they relate (e.g. do authors who use series also use issue and if so do they place a series above an issue or the other way around).

It is more a paper on numismatic terminology than on taxonomy (what exactly to use the names for).

SC
SC
(Shawn Caza, Ottawa)

Offline Altamura

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2934
Re: When is a Variant a New Coin
« Reply #7 on: September 12, 2020, 10:31:34 am »
... It is more a paper on numismatic terminology than on taxonomy (what exactly to use the names for). ...
In my eyes it is about both. Callataÿ clearly shows that there are different names for the same things and different definitions of the same names.

This shows that in numismatic literature there is no common understanding on how to classify coins, or in other words no common answer to the question initiating this thread "When is a Variant a New Coin?"  :(.

Regards

Altamura


Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: When is a Variant a New Coin
« Reply #8 on: September 12, 2020, 11:51:38 am »
I'd say it depends on the practices of the base reference you might be considering the coin as a variant of, which might not even be consistent within the reference !

If the differences between a coin and listed types, in a given reference, are such that (per the practices of that reference) the authors would have assigned a new reference number to the coin if they had known about it, then it should be considered as a new type; otherwise if it differs from the reference in some more minor way such that it would not have been listed separately then it should be considered as a variant.

For example in RIC VII different bust types of otherwise identical coins are usually (always?) assigned different numbers. So if you had an unlisted bust type, then that would really be considered as a new type. On the other hand, RIC typically (but not always!) disregards things like officina number and legend breaks as far as attribution goes, even though they may note these details for specimens seen, so in that case if you had a new officina or legend break that would be considered as a variant of the type.

However even withing a given reference things arn't always consistent, so for example RIC sometimes (especially for gold) DOES assign different numbers based on legend breaks, so if dealing with such a type that the same principle would hold and you'd consider a different break as a different type.

I guess it comes down to "when in rome, do as the romans did". If you're going to be cataloging a coin to a particular reference work, then it makes most sense to follow the standards of that reference, however much sense they do or don't make, and however consistent or not they may be.

Personally I find some of RIC's attribution standards to be more annoying than useful, and sometimes there's considerable clarity to be had by ignoring "proper" attribution and instead just grouping coins based on whatever attributes you may have learned to be significant.

So, really it all comes down to utility and "local" standards. The exact same coin may be a new type per the standards of one reference, and a variant per the standards of another. If you're cataloging then follow the reference, else for your own purposes do whatever makes sense !

Ben

Offline Altamura

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2934
Re: When is a Variant a New Coin
« Reply #9 on: September 12, 2020, 12:25:51 pm »
...  do whatever makes sense ! ...
This seems to be the essence to me  :). If your model references are not consistent it is difficult to do better  :-\.

Regards

Altamura


Offline SC

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 6068
    • A Handbook of Late Roman Bronze Coin Types 324-395.
Re: When is a Variant a New Coin
« Reply #10 on: September 13, 2020, 10:38:48 am »
This is why I am disappointed that there has not been more study of this issue.

Ben gives us the conventional wisdom when it comes to using existing references.  But as Altamira notes, we still have no real definition.  Or, as I would argue, no good taxonomical study.  In other words, ignoring existing references which often differ in approach, what are the "best practices"??

I would like, for example, to see any such discussion address, or perhaps even being with a focus on the design and manufacture process and the questions it raises.

For example, the differences in coin design can be:
- intentional: design details that are intentionally or officially added by officina (or higher, such as mint, region, treasury) officials.
- diagnostic: design details that were likely not intentionally or officially added but that can provide clues or indicators about a factor such as the mint, issue, etc. - in other words stylistic factors.
- random: design details that are not intentionally or officially added and that do not provide clues or indicators about a factor such as mint, issue, etc. but are simply differences in day to day or example to example engraving.

I addressed these issues to a limited degree in may article on FTR Falling Horsemen LRBCs in KOINON II where I look at the problem of how to handle the dozens and dozens of design variations - many of which have no meaning and were clearly not intentional variation.

I believe that these sort of issues need to be addressed in order to address questions like what is a variation, what is a series, what is an issue, etc.

Shawn
 
SC
(Shawn Caza, Ottawa)

Offline Robert_Brenchley

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7307
  • Honi soit qui mal y pense.
    • My gallery
Re: When is a Variant a New Coin
« Reply #11 on: September 13, 2020, 04:55:39 pm »
I think there's a fair subjective element at times, but then the same goes for almost any other complex system of classification. With coins varying so enormously from one place and time to another, it's hard to see how it could be avoided.
Robert Brenchley

My gallery: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=10405
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: When is a Variant a New Coin
« Reply #12 on: September 13, 2020, 08:18:14 pm »
To me one major purpose of a reference is to not only record the material (as was the case with early works such as Cohen), but also to attempt to arrange it per the way it was produced so that we can tie it to the history and make connections across mints. If the mint locations are fixed, then this comes down to assigning to mint (not always so simple – RIC gets it wrong in a number of places) and determining issue order and dates. Arranging the coins in this way then becomes the basis of assigning reference numbers. In attributing a coin we can then relate it to the arrangement of the material and use that a starting point for any further studies.

This may seem to suppose too much about the purpose of reference numbers, but otherwise we may as well just assign sequential numbers to all known coins, then one can look it up and say “I have a specimen of 42!!” … and so what? As Richard Feynman says, it’s the difference between “knowing the name of something and knowing something”. A reference number that is just a tag is a name, but a reference number that provides a doorway to the history is knowledge.

So then, if we accept that one purpose of a reference number is to identify the issue, how else should we subdivide them? Minimally we should distinguish major reverse types and different emperors, but what else? I guess this is the crux of the matter. Too much further subdivision based on bust types, obverse legends and reverse type minutiae is the direction RIC VI-VII seems to have taken, creating a combinatorial explosion of attribution factors, and this self-created narrow-type problem of “is it a type or is it a variant”. On the other hand, too little subdivision and we fail to make numismatically (and financially!) significant bust and obverse legend varieties, etc, easily searchable.

If these were the only options, then I think that broader (more inclusive) types are preferable as they make the composition of the material when searching more immediately apparent. In combination with a well defined attribution scheme (see my “don’t”s below) the type vs variant problem would mostly go away, as the broader types would be inclusive of many things now considered as variants of some narrower type.

An altogether different approach to reference numbers, taken by some recent references, is to make references structured rather than linear, therefore avoiding the combinatorial explosion, as well as accommodating unseen variants. We could then, for example, have a reference number of structure issue.emperor.reverse.bust.legend.sub-type, and software could be designed to allow us to search on all these components, even for unseen variants catalogued per this scheme.

As a computer geek, an even more flexible scheme that comes to mind, designed for the computer age, would be make reference designations a collection of (tag, value) pairs such as {(issue, PTR S-A) (reverse, GENIO POP ROM) (emperor, Constantine)} etc. The value here would be that it could be extended by adding additional tags beyond those originally conceived by the reference, so as a collector or researcher you could further organize your collection, or reference material, by adding tags of your own devising. This would of course work best with an online reference. The whole crux issue of broad vs narrow types is really one created by the need to define linear reference numbers for dead-tree reference works!

Finally, it doesn’t matter what reference number scheme you use if the discriminative criteria you’re mapping to reference numbers are ill-defined! This should go without saying, but RIC violates it freely, so I’ll say it anyway: reference numbers should be based on non-subjective numismatic criteria such that attribution is objective and unambiguous based on inspection of a coin.

For example:

- don’t attribute based on the date the coin was issued (e.g. before/after someone else’s death, e.g. RIC VI vs VIII) unless it’s possible to determine that by inspecting the coin !

- don’t attribute based on things that are a matter of design execution rather than intent (e.g. did the celator depict the epaulets on an LDC bust, or where did he have to break the legend to work around the bust)

- don’t attribute based on stylistic criteria (e.g. bust size) that exist along a continuum

- don’t attribute based on loosely controlled variables such as flan size that exist along a continuum

All these sort of things belong in footnotes.

Ben

Offline Altamura

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2934
Re: When is a Variant a New Coin
« Reply #13 on: September 15, 2020, 06:37:44 am »
Interesting thoughts, but my view on this is in some aspects a bit different.

At first we should ask for what purpose we want to have that. A reference number is at first refering to something else (usually a book) where a description, a dating, historical background etc. about the coin I have in hand can be found. It attaches my coin to a source of information and often gives the collector some sort of certainty and "official approval" about the identification of his coin (that's why people are often asking here for a reference number for a coin they have already identified). And for this in my eyes the usual reference works are doing a good job.

If we want to have a comprehensive taxonomy for ancient coinage we should define the objective of this at first. What do we want to do with it and what can we do with it what now is impossible?

... If the mint locations are fixed, then this comes down to assigning to mint (not always so simple – RIC gets it wrong in a number of places) and determining issue order and dates. Arranging the coins in this way then becomes the basis of assigning reference numbers. ...
Why exactly in this way, why not the dates before the mints? In general it is the question about which are the criteria the classification to be built on and in which sequence should these criteria be applied? There is no natural answer.
And what are we doing with coin types where we have neither a mint nor a date (with Greek coinage you have this quite often, ancient coinage is much more than RIC alone  :)).

... but otherwise we may as well just assign sequential numbers to all known coins, then one can look it up and say “I have a specimen of 42!!” …
Indeed you should assign some sort of sequential numbers to the coin types to identify them uniquely and to keep them stable, e.g. against new insights. The identifying key should not contain information about the object it identifies. And if you "have a specimen of 42" then you have to look up the attributes of 42 (the properties) to get more information about the coin type. And if the properties are changing (e.g. the mint) than we just have to change this property, but it still remains number 42 and nobody referring somehow to 42 has to change his reference.

Concerning the references we also have to distinguish today between collection catalogs (as e.g. the Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum or the BMC) and type catalogs (as e.g. RIC). For a taxonomy we would need a comprehensive type catalog.

... Too much further subdivision based on bust types, obverse legends and reverse type minutiae ...
Do you think that these are criteria for the hierarchy of the taxonomy and thus decisive for the classification or just attributes of a coin type? This has to be decided and is crucial for the structure of the hierarchy.

... We could then, for example, have a reference number of structure issue.emperor.reverse.bust.legend.sub-type ...
If I undestand it right this is more the approach of describing a coin by it's properties. But what is the "structure issue" you mention? Is this part of a hierarchy? I didn't understand that  :-\.

... and software could be designed to allow us to search on all these components ...
This is perhaps the approach they have chosen for NOMISMA (http://nomisma.org/) which is underlying some numismatic applications in the web like the ANS collection (but I must admit that I didn't had yet a closer look to that  :().
But as far as I see there are no concepts of coin types, there are just (individual) coins and their properties.

So it is not so easy, but I think that NOMISMA and all the related projects are going in the right direction of defining structures for describing coins and coin types. And perhaps some day we will communicate with NOMISMA numbers or names as our reference numbers like we are talking today of Turdus merula if we have seen a common blackbird (ok, perhaps not all of us  ;)).

Regards

Altamura


 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity