A review of Varbanov (English Edition)

[Bobicus]

Greek Imperial Coins And Their Values
Volume I Dacia, Moesia Superior, Moesia Inferior
(English Edition)
Ivan Varbanov, ©2005 Adicom Publications

Summary: The long awaited English version of Varbanov’s guide to coins of the Balkans Peninsula is completed and published.  This reference is vastly superior to the translation of Moushmov which is available for free on the internet.  It is a comprehensive guide to the coins of the cities of Moesia Inferior.  5821 coins are described and a substantial number of the coins are illustrated both observe and reverse.  Each coin description includes a citation, if one exists, as well as a value in Euros for the coin in VF condition. Probably the best affordable guide to the coinage of Moesia Inferior and Dacia that is available in English. 

Contents and a more detailed review:
 
Greek Imperial Coins begins with a section dedicated to describing the variety of reverses found on the coinage of the Balkans. This section is approximately 18 pages long and is vastly superior to the analogous section in Sear’s Greek Imperial Coins, because all of Varbanov’s types are illustrated. There are listings of the major types, including Deities, Personifications, Colonial Types and Animals.  All of the descriptions include at least one or more photographs.  In the case of the Deities, details of the scenes and motifs they are likely to be found with are described as well as their Greek and Roman names. The section covering the Deities is the best overall guide that I have seen regarding the Gods on coins.

The rarity scale that Varbanov uses is explained in the next section.  The rarity scale begins with R1 (Quite common, more than 1500 examples) and concludes with R10 (Very rare, only 1 or 2 examples known).  I much prefer this type of  scale with many well defined graduations, to those found in the older RIC volumes (CC, C, S, R, R₁, R₂) or Van Meter (VB1 – VB6), where each of these gradients might mean just about anything.

After these introductory sections, the coinage catalog begins.  As a prelude to each City and Province there is a very brief historical overview.  Then follows the actual coin descriptions.  The coin listings are Grouped by City, then by Emperor (or family member) and then by Reverse Legend.  The observe legends and types are contained in tables at the start of each Emperor section, very much like RIC.

Dacia:   Approximately 8 pages and 96 coin descriptions are devoted to Dacia.

Moesia Superior: Varbanov devotes 12 pages to Viminacium, and lists approximately 145 coins.  This section contains my only disappointment in the book.  A distinction is made for the dates in the exergues, but it isn’t very consistent.  This strikes me as being a major oversight for a catalog of Viminacium.  For those fluent in German, and with deeper pockets, the section in AMNG is vastly superior to what is found here.

Moesia Inferior: This section is the main focus of Greek Imperial coins. This sections listings are superior and make this reference a “must have” for those who only know English, or read German poorly. Approximately 400 pages and 5700 coin listing are spread amongst the 7 cities (Callatis, Dionysoplois, Istrus,  Marcianoplois, Nicopolis ad Istrum, Odessus, and Tomis).  The coinage of each of these cities is covered in detail with appropriate references to AMNG and other sources. After a glace at the listings for Nicopolis ad Istrum and Marcianopolis approximately 25% of the listings are hitherto unpublished.  These are the coins that are frequently found in unclean coin lots from the Balkans, and this reference should be owned by those who clean or collect these coins.  Comparing the listings in Varbanov against the same listings in AMNG is very difficult for me, but my impression is AMNG will cite more sources for many coins, and possibly provide more descriptive material on some coins.  But Varbanov is very richly illustrated and on most pages photographs, of the observes and reverses, of at least 4 coins are shown.

Conclusion:  If you have an interest in the coins of Moesia Inferior, and can afford $145.00 for a reference, put in your order today.

[Severus_Alexander]

I received my book copy and I love it.  It reminds me very much of one of David Sear's books in its configuration.   A nice introduction section and then the coins are broken out by areas.  I really like it.   

I would like to see what Curtis thinks about the guide and see if any of the previously mentioned problems with Varbanov were corrected with this translation.

[Jerome Holderman]

Sounds like this might be the provincial reference I should be buying! Might take a pass on a couple coins this month and do just that.

[curtislclay]

      The exorbitant price has kept me from acquiring the book so far. 
      In Nov. 2002, I paid $139 for VOLUMES I TO IV of the Bulgarian edition, that is $34.75 per volume.   That seemed OK, but no bargain, since the books are cheaply produced and bound, and involve little original research, being mainly a compilation of already published material.
       Now I am asked to pay $145 for Volume I only of the English translation?
       Looks like I may have to revive my plan to learn numismatic Bulgarian, which I had put off in anticipation of simply buying the English edition of Varbanov!
        Apparently over 1100 new listings have been added to the English edition, meaning I would like to acquire it someday.  Same publisher Adicom, but have the paper, printing, size, and binding also remained the same for the English as for the Bulgarian edition?

[slokind]

Similarly, I have considered waiting to see which comes out first, the RPCs that I want, or the monograph on Philippopolis that I want most of all--or the English versions of Varbanov.  I take for granted better printing in the new one, but that is not enough, since the best pictures come from auction catalogues most of which I have.  So far as vol. I is concerned, that is what AMNG already covers, even if not all dies known now had been recorded then, and I have learned most of the essential words in Bulgarian and can learn the rest.  I need to see that Varbanov has himself examined, at least in photos or casts, all the coins he lists.  I mean, Sear RCV 2000 is hardly BMCRE, but it really is quite carefully done, and GIC, however skimpy, is to the same standard. I really would pay the new price for vols. II and III (with additional illustrations, from those Private Unpublished collections!), but not for vol. I alone.  Patricia Lawrence

[kerux]

According to the Adicom site there are plans for the other volumes in English. Guess I'll wait till the set is available & reasonable....

[Britannicus]

Depending on how good it is, this catalogue potentially fills a niche in the market, and could (under normal circumstances) be expected to sell widely. However, unless it is superbly produced, with Max Hirmer-quality photos, the price is ridiculous. Is somebody out there being unnecessarily greedy? With desktop publishing and books-on-demand technology, there is no real excuse for this.
So what are we to do? Learn Bulgarian? Learn German? Encourage a major local library to buy the book? Trawl for it with inter-library loans? Wait for the paperback edition? Or simply switch to collecting the pretty new Euros?   

[curtislclay]

This was my assessment of Vols. 1-4 of the Bulgarian edition of Varbanov's catalogue, from another Forvm thread:

"Attempts to be a complete cat. of the provincials of Moesia, Thrace, Macedonia.  Excerpts descriptions and illustrations from the specialist mint studies and articles, many in Bulgarian and difficult to access and read for Western Europeans and Americans.  Also excerpts CNG, NAC, Gorny, Lanz, Hirsch, Rauch, and Peus cats. from c. 1990 on.  Some coins added from private collections. 
"Accuracy is middling, errors fairly common.  One very bad practice is sometimes resorted to, the repetition of an obv. image with a rev. it doesn't go with, because the source illustrated the rev. only of that coin but Varbanov wanted to show both sides!
"That's vols. 1-3, arranged by province, then mint, then emp., then rev. legends and types in alphabetical order.  Vol. 4 is totally different: a SELECTIVE cat. of provincials of the rest of the empire, Spain, Africa, Greece, Asia Minor, Syria, Alexandria, arranged first BY EMPEROR, then geographically under each emperor, in other words a copy of Sear's Greek Imperial book but with Moesia, Thrace, Macedonia excluded.  Since order by emperors rather than mints ruins the subject, this is of minimal value.  Hopefully they won't even bother to translate this vol. into English.
"Vol. 5, which as far as I know hasn't yet appeared in Bulgarian, is scheduled to cover the autonomous coins of Moesia, Thrace, Macedonia."

An opportunity arose and I have finally acquired Vols. 1-2 of the English translation.  It is certainly a great improvement over the Bulgarian edition, for three main reasons:

1.  The translation itself, which is generally excellent, with no major or distracting errors.  At last English-speakers can read the catalogue at a glance.  I had almost given up consulting the text of the Bulgarian edition, it was so tedious to have to look up almost every word in the dictionary, and occasionally to have to check the equivalencies of the Cyrillic letters in order to sound out the words.  "Variant" is "variant" in Bulgarian too, but it looks very different in Cyrillic letters!

2.  Greatly improved paper, printing, and binding.  First edition:  ordinary copypaper, text and illustrations photocopied with streaks when the toner got low, pages merely stapled together so the book will not stay open or lie flat.  English edition:  glossy paper, no more streaking of the printing, sewn binding so the book will lie open on your desk.  The illustrations, mostly from sale catalogues, have often lost sharpness in the reproduction, but remain usable.

3.  Many new illustrations and listings.  For example Sev. Alex. with either Mamaea or Maesa at Marcianopolis, 10 coins ill. in the Bulgarian edition.  The English edition repeats six of those illustrations, upgrades two of them with better specimens, omits two without replacement, and adds 16 new illustrations, for a total of 24 coins illustrated.  53 coins of these sorts are described in the first edition, 10 illustrated; 62 such coins in the second edition, 24 illustrated.

To be continued.

[curtislclay]

As to errors, apparently nobody informed Varbanov, so most of the old ones unfortunately remain, and some new ones have been perpetrated in the English edition!  The following are merely a few typical examples.

Some of the mismatched illustrations of the obv. of one coin and the rev. of another have been replaced with new and correct illustrations from auction catalogues, but many others remain, and some have also been added.  Vol. II, Anchialus 178, for example, joins a rev. of Sept. Sev. at Anchialus copied from AMNG pl. VI.28 with an obv. of Sept. Sev. at PAUTALIA taken from Ruzicka, Pautalia, pl. X.14!  In the Bulgarian ed., II 652, only the rev. from AMNG had been used.  Pity the scholar who is overjoyed to think he has discovered a die link between a genuine coin of Pautalia and this Anchialus pastiche fabricated by Varbanov!

Vol. I, Nicopolis ad I. 3115 = 1st ed. 2455.  The description specifies Caracalla under gov. Tertullus, but the ill. is of Elagabalus under gov. Novius Rufus. 

Vol . I, Tomis 4695 = 1st ed. 3707, Ant. Pius with rev. Tyche, however the ill. coin, copied from Sear GIC 1354, is of Nicopolis not Tomis!  The very same ill. is also correctly used under Nicopolis, 2123 = first ed. 1685.

Vol. II, Augusta Trajana 1368 = 1st ed. 443, text says Geta, but the ill. is of Caracalla as sole Augustus.

Same mint 1386 = 1st ed. 497 serves up a unique coin of Severus Alexander at Aug. Traj. under gov. Sicinnius Clarus.  Coins of Sev. Alex. at this mint are otherwise totally unknown.  Unfortunately Clarus actually served as gov. under Septimius Severus, and the rev. illustrated is probably from a coin of Plautilla.  The Sev. Alex. obverse, in contrast, comes from a coin of Marcianopolis under gov. Tereventinus, same die as Berk List 87, 642, and many others in my photofile.  It is hard to understand how this monstrosity came about and why it was not excised by a critical author or proofreader long before making it into print in a first and now second edition.

At Pautalia, coinage ends under Caracalla.  Coins attributed by some authors to Elagabalus are actually all of Caracalla, as Ruzicka explicitly states in his monograph on Pautalia, p. 14.  Yet since Mouchmov had earlier described coins of Elagabalus from Pautalia, Varbanov took over Mouchmov's error in his first edition, though he could of course find no illustrations of those alleged coins. 

In his second edition, Vol. II, 5484 and 5489, Varbanov pretends to find such illustrations, taking them from auction catalogues where the coins in question were correctly attributed to Caracalla!  5484, Varbanov alleges, is a coin of Elagabalus, with rev. Elagabalus and Julia Paula holding a globe between them.  But wives do not support globes with their emperors, they clasp hands, and both of the figures shown are togate males.  The obv. is actually Caracalla, and the rev. shows Septimius and Caracalla, being from THE SAME REV. DIE as Varbanov 5285, which is correctly attributed to Caracalla.

A collector, seeking no more than to attribute his own coins, is unlikely to be bothered or misled by such errors and fantasies, however.  The majority of the descriptions are accurate, and it is very useful to have them and the many illustrations gathered in one place, and now made generally available through the English translation.

I understand that, despite the high price, Vols. 1-2 are already out of print, but maybe some dealers still have copies to sell, or the rapid sale may inspire a reprinting.

[whitetd49]

Given all the caveats listed above, I purchased Vol. 1 (English) from Forvm.  I find it quite useful as I do not have AMNG, etc.  I have already found some legend and device variations not found in the book.  I note that reversed spears may be described as scepters.  In addition, while it does specify bust types and legends, it does not take into account legend breaks.  Potential buyers should be aware that only a minority of all the listed coins are illustrated.  What illustrations are present are of good quality and resolution.  Those familar with Sear's volumes should have no problem navigating through it.  Bottom line is that I am pleased with the book despite it's shortcomings and price. 

[Bacchus]

The book does fill (largely) a gap in the reference market and is of excellent value, even considering the price.  The amount of work that went into this must have been exhaustive and the author is to be congratulated for that. 

There definitely are a few errors - and a few 'impossible' coins that I have noticed but my one problem with the book is the way the coins are listed by legend rather than by type (within the context of mint and issuing authority).  With these coins it is unusual to get an example with the legend complete so when trying to trace a match it involves checking against all the possible legend variations on many different pages.  A coins reverse image is nearly always decernable so from a practical point of view I would rather the coins were listed by type so that all the possible legend variations were beside one another rather than on different pages.

However overall this is a minor issue on what is an undoubtedly standard work for the area.

Malcolm


PS - If anyone has Prof. Varbanovs email address could they please send me a message.  I did have it but have lost it in the move to my new PC - thanks  edit - Ahh it is on the front of the book - I should have checked first

[curtislclay]

Further to Moonmoth's recent thread under Roman Provincial Coins: I would agree that Varbanov's arrangement of the coins in the alphabetical order of their reverse legends was a serious mistake, because, as Bacchus commented, you often can't make out the exact spelling of the beginning of the rev. legend on a coin you want to attribute, so have to search through all the possible variants in Varbanov.

Moreover, Varbanov himself sometimes misreads the rev. legends, so lists them in incorrect order, for example I, 3180, rev. legend begins VPA not VP, so this coin is identical to 3202, which is actually from the same dies!

How annoying and impractical that Varbanov didn't simply follow the much more logical and useful order adopted by AMNG, namely

1.  Separate not only the emperors and empresses, but also the coins of emperors showing different ranks: coins of Caracalla Caesar before those of Caracalla Augustus, and so on.

2.  Under each emperor or rank of an emperor, list first all coins that name a governor or local magistrate, bringing together all coins naming the same magistrate because they were obviously struck during one and the same period, and arranging the magistrates in their apparent chronological order.  Under each magistrate, separate the denominations, listing the largest coins first and the smallest last.  Finally under each denomination, list the coins in the order of their reverse types, for example first gods and goddesses, then the emperor, then architectural types, then animals, then inanimate objects.

3.  Second under each emperor or rank of emperor come the coins WITHOUT any magistrate's name, again divided by denominations, and within each denomination by reverse types.

This order is so much more practical and easy for attributing coins, and also gives one such a head start in understanding the denominational structure and chronology of the coinage, that it's like the difference between day and night!

[moonmoth]

There are certainly some minor oddities in vol I. I was looking through the section on Odessus, Gordian III and Tranquillina. No. 4555 is listed as not having the A at the end of Tranquillina on the obverse (legend A), but in the illustration a faint A can be seen.  But this might be an artifact of the reproduction of the photo.

More oddly, in this section, V. gives 10 varieties of obverse legend, numbered A to J; but no examples of D, G, H or J are listed.  So where did those legends come from?   This adds a layer of confusion to working out attributions, especially in the common situation where the legends are only partly decipherable.

I have not checked the other sections of the book.

Bill

[Anaximander]

I think you'll find the Varbanov references to be useful, if less than perfect. I tend to use references to confirm attributions rather than as an identification guide, so the criticisms meted out by Curtis Clay and others are somewhat less relevant. 

Charles M. has made good use of his copies. See his thread here, when you learn where to find Varbanov's books.