Wrong references about MG diobols (on this forum too :( )

[Taras]

Hi everybody,
in these days I broke my head on hundreds of photos of MG diobols on the web, to classify some of mine from Tarentum or Heraklea. I noticed many errors.

I post here what i found wrong...


1) http://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greek-coins.asp?zpg=14479

The diobol is classifed  SGCV I 352... but it's wrong.. I can't see any head of Herakles r. wearing lion skin!! 





2) http://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greek-coins.asp?zpg=15089

Same error! 



3) http://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greek-coins.asp?zpg=15820

..and once again... brutal copy-paste? 



4) http://www.aeqvitas.com/photo.php?freeform=wearing



Classifed Sear 351var, but it seems to me a bit too "var"...





5) http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/lucania/herakleia/t.html



Classifed  Sear 387... It's wrong, I can't see Herakles kneeling..





6) http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/sg/sg0351.html

Classifed Sear 351.
Read what Sear writes in 351(Herakles standing right), and then look at the reverse of examples n.3, 4, and 6





Now... I ask myself... I'm too pedant and classification of coins must be so rough, or It's better to classify own coins only with real books, not trusting too much in the web references?
Maybe I'm wrong, help me understand.
Bye all

[rover1.3]

Extremely irritating, isn't it? You will get used to it...

Coin databases and dealers' inventories are full of such copy-paste errors.
These mistakes are confusing, especially to new collectors.
People like to copy and paste the information for their own use, because they mistakenly believe it is cool to do so.
The problem is that they usually don't have the books to check on their own if the information is right or wrong.

The solution?
1.Stop copy-pasting reference numbers on books you don't really own.
2.Stop giving others reference numbers on books you don't really own!
3.Trust no one when it comes to references, build your own library in the fields you are interested in.
4.Classify your collection using your library.

best regards,

rover

[bpmurphy]

First what is an MG diobol?

Second, Sear is a pretty crappy book to use as a standard reference as it lists only a small percentage of the different varieties. Anyone who cites Sear as a references is usually left with the option of citing the coin as a variety of a Sear number or citing whatever is closest. Some beginning collectors only have Sear so some dealers like to cite a Sear reference for these collectors and often times it's not an exact match, just what's closest. Personally I don't like Sear as it's too incomplete and I would get annoyed citing everything as a var. but some dealers do use it and that's fine.

With Tarentum, Vlasto, HN (Historia Numorum), SNG ANS, SNG France would all be much better references. Sear lists only 3 diobol varities for Tarentum. HN lists 22 for the same period and some of these group multiple varieties with different contol letters into the same HN number.

In the cases you cited it's not really a case of the dealers citing the wrong reference, it's a case of using too incomplete of a reference and having to use whatever is closest.

Barry Murphy

[curtislclay]

MG presumably = Magna Graecia.

[Enodia]

very frustrating Taras, but sometimes it gets even worse.
i recently saw two different Athena facing left diobols for sale by a reputable dealer with the c&p description "Athena right, ...". the same mistake twice! was he not even looking at the coins?!

rover is absolutely right regarding credible attributions. unfortunately many of us don't have or can't afford the necessary references. sometimes they aren't even available (such as Vlasto).
they can also be very expensive, and if i were to buy all the books i need on my tight budget i would have no coin collection to reference anyway.

we do the best we can given our abilities and resources.
for instance i have compiled a very large census of Tarantine coins gathered from various online sources. i then narrow this down into a catalog by keeping only those which i can cross-reference at least three times. this is not a perfect solution, but it helps. however it is very time consuming and labor intensive, and i'd hate to have to do this for every mint i'd like to collect!

sharing your frustration,
~ Peter

[Taras]

Thanks for all answers, now I know I'm not alone in this trouble.
So.. Enodia's solution is surely the best one for our pockets, but do not surely safe us from errors by copy-paste practices going popular on the web.

Now, assuming I could buy some catalogs, what could be the best choise for Magna Graecia Coins? (excluding Sicily)

My hyphotesis, after a search on web stores, excluding incomplete books (Sear, I already have), or unavailable books (Ravel-Vlasto; SNG ANS vol 1-2-3) is:

- N. K. Rutter. Historia Numorum, Italy
- Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum (SNG) France, volume 6-1 Italie
- The Arthur S. Dewing Collection of Greek Coins (Two Volumes) ANS 1985

Do you think would be enough?

[areich]

I also want to say that not every coin needs a reference number. If you don't own the catalog and don't specialize in them, what is the point? It's much more important to be able to date a coin by fabric, style, to distinguish for example an early coin from a late one of the same general type. Also to know what the occasion for the coin was, if it is known. Sites like acsearch are good for that, even if you can't depend 100% on anybody's cataloging (not even your own). The interesting things are not the numbers but the comments and explanations in the catalogs.

If you specialize and can't get or afford the catalog, then you have a small problem. 

[Aarmale]

If you specialize and can't get or afford the catalog, then you have a small problem. 

I can vouch for that.  I have spent many hours looking through online sources and emailing people to find information ofn certain coins.  I'll bet that if I could get my hands on a copy of a new Judaean reference work, I would not recognize many of the newly published coins!

[Andrew McCabe]

If you specialize and can't get or afford the catalog, then you have a small problem. 

I can vouch for that.  I have spent many hours looking through online sources and emailing people to find information ofn certain coins.  I'll bet that if I could get my hands on a copy of a new Judaean reference work, I would not recognize many of the newly published coins!

I fully agree with Andreas' points. Never bother seeking catalogue numbers to a catalogue which you don't own or have access to. If you don't have the specialist catalogues then it is a bit pointless to try and find an exact match in a Sear price guide: it won't be there. Even specialist catalogues miss some types. And be kind to coin dealers. They work with the books on THEIR shelves which will not be everything. So when a dealer says "compare Sear GCV 12345" he is just being helpful and pointing you in the rough direction of the coin. If your coin is not an exact match it's probably not because the dealer chose the wrong GCV number, more likely there is no exact match in GCV (as applies in about 95% of cases) and the dealer was doing his best.

Also remember that acsearch and (more so) Wildwinds are themselves forms of catalogues. So it is perfectly ok, in your own coin records to write "the same as acsearch.info/xyz.html", or "similar to wildwinds.com/abc.html but without caduceus, and with regnal year B instead of A"

[rover1.3]

And be kind to coin dealers. They work with the books on THEIR shelves which will not be everything.

No, we won't be kind to dealers because dealers are dealers. We have nothing in common with dealers. We will be kind to helpful collectors instead.
It is widely known that many of these self called as "reputable", and "knowledgeable" dealers know nothing on the coins they sell. They only sell, that's all.
Now, if you feel it is your duty to write an extremely lengthy post to defend your friends, you can do it if you like,
but i can ensure you that you will completely waste yours - and my- time.

The only REAL solution for the collector is to trust no one when it comes to references, and to slowly build his own library.

All the rest are only jokes and philology.

[Andrew McCabe]

And be kind to coin dealers. They work with the books on THEIR shelves which will not be everything.

No, we won't be kind to dealers, because dealers are dealers. We have nothing in common with dealers. We will be kind to helpful collectors instead.
It is widely known that plenty of these self called as "reputable", and "knowledgeable" dealers know nothing on the coins they sell. They only sell, that's all.
Now, if you feel it is your duty to write an extremely lengthy post to defend your friends, you can do it if you like,
but i can ensure you that you will completely waste yours - and my- time.

It doesn't need a lengthy post, just some examples.

- Joe Sermarini is a dealer. I vote to be kind to Joe.
- Alfredo De La Fe is a dealer. He created coinproject.com. I hope I have a lot in common with Alfredo, and if I don't then it's me who falls short not Alfredo.
- CNG publishes many research monographs on ancient coins as well as the new Handbook of Greek Coinage, and hosts a research website. I think they are knowledgeable (no need for inverted commas) and know a lot about the coins they sell.
- I would say the same about Spink.
- I can cite probably another couple of dozen dealers who correspond with me about coins for the pure pleasure of the subject, often sending me examples of interesting examples they turn up.
- I am co-writing some academic articles with coin dealers. I guess we must have something in common and I'm relying on their expertise in doing so. What's more they will make no money from such articles as the Numismatic Chronicle and American Journal of Numismatics and such-like don't pay for articles.

Dealers are, in a general sense, my friends, not because they are dealers but because those who I have friendly relations with are knowledgeable people with a keen interest in ancient coins that I share, and are generous with their time and resources.

[Enodia]

So.. Enodia's solution is surely the best one for our pockets, but do not surely safe us from errors by copy-paste practices going popular on the web.

no, it doesn't really offer any safeguard at all. it works well enough for me, but it is not a substitute for a thorough library.

And be kind to coin dealers. They work with the books on THEIR shelves which will not be everything.

i recently saw two different Athena facing left diobols for sale by a reputable dealer with the c&p description "Athena right, ...". the same mistake twice! was he not even looking at the coins?!

and all the books in the world won't matter in the least when one can't even describe what one is holding in one's hand.

~ Peter

[areich]

It's perfectly natural. If you list a lot of coins and you're a dealer, not a collector who can afford to take the time and lovingly type each coin's description by hand  , these things will happen.

[Andrew McCabe]

It's perfectly natural. If you list a lot of coins and you're a dealer, not a collector who can afford to take the time and lovingly type each coin's description by hand  , these things will happen.

True in general, but it's not hand-typing as such that indicates care, rather knowing when is the time to cut-and-paste and when the time to do some careful research.

I've spent long hours in one dealers premises (studying coins in stock - for academic purposes, not for potential purchase - as well as accessing books from the dealers library which were generously made available to me) and saw cataloguing in practice. Many coins would require little more than a cut-paste from the dealer's prior-auction database perhaps with specific details such as control marks clarified. Then a difficult series would be hit (typically Greek silver) involving consulting SNG's or old auction catalogues, perhaps taking 10 minutes per coin. Then a very tough coin would come up and an hour or two might be spent on just that coin involving multiple books, and possibly justifying a standalone catalogue note explaining the issues. No reliance was placed on online sources (coinarchives) presumably because there is a risk of compounding past errors if one takes someone else's wrongly written description.

I'm not saying such care is always taken, but there are dealers and dealers.

[areich]

I agree and that's the reason for the   . I copy and paste descriptions (not so much catalog references) for my own coins as well.  I want coins of the same or a similar type to have the same description. There are literally hundreds of ways you can describe a late Roman with IOVI CONSERVATOR reverse. Of course I don't care too much so I'm sure the descriptions in my gallery are not all up to this standard. I frequently mix up right and left, even when typing a description by hand.

For a dealer it all boils down to how much time he can reasonably spend on an average coin and  most coins are not the type where a self-written essay makes sense from a business point of view. I don't see why this is something to get so excited about.

[benito]

When  I first  came to this group descriptions were very secondary in my collection . After a few months of brain  washing everything has changed. Detail helps to find rare, unique or possibly unpublished  specimens (I give no consideration to not in RIC,too easy).What do you think of this extremely rare variant of a Constantine I ?

AE follis. Thessalonica (second officina) 312 - 313 AD. 23,53 mm. 4.092 grs. Laureate ( 12 leaves and two knots in ties),draped and cuirassed (12 pteriges on right shoulder) bust right. IMP CONSTANTINVS P F AVG   /   Bearded Jupiter ,smallish ....., standing three quarter facing,head to left, bit of drapery hanging from left shoulder. Holding Victory  on globe (carrying wreath) with left wing down and right wing raised. At feet eagle stumbling left wreath in  beak.  IOVI CONSERVATORI AVGG N N. In exergue dot TS dot B dot.
RIC VI 61b (variant).

[bpmurphy]

Whys is it a variant of 61b?

Barry Murphy

[areich]

Interesting question just occurred to me. Should we only count the visible laurel leaves, assume that two are hidden behind the ear and should we then assume that there are just as many on the other side of the head?

[Taras]

Wow how many Caesars on the post I started!!

................

I also want to say that not every coin needs a reference number. If you don't own the catalog and don't specialize in them, what is the point? It's much more important to be able to date a coin by fabric, style, to distinguish for example an early coin from a late one of the same general type. Also to know what the occasion for the coin was, if it is known. Sites like acsearch are good for that, even if you can't depend 100% on anybody's cataloging (not even your own). The interesting things are not the numbers but the comments and explanations in the catalogs.

If you specialize and can't get or afford the catalog, then you have a small problem. 

I totally agree with you areich, but don't you think that a reference number could be a good start to date, distinguish, comment and explain a coin?
I think the beauty of numismatics is quite that... to integrate art and history with positivistic and nosological approach...
to order the chaos of beauty.
Today I feel very philosophical! 

[areich]

Of course but if you don't have access to the reference the number is taken from, it won't help you much in understanding that particular type of coin. If you do, you can look it up yourself which means there will be no copy and paste errors and any errors there are will be your own. This insistence on catalog numbers to catalogs that the collector doesn't own is what I find irritating.
But I think I have said this once or twice before. 

[curtislclay]

Many collectors want to know how rare their coins are, whether the variant they have is published in the best reference, and how many specimens of it are known.

That would appear to be a legitimate reason for finding out the catalogue number and specimen count or assigned rarity even in catalogues that they cannot consult themselves!

[areich]

Maybe, but if it's a coin one has only one specimen of, what does it matter if it is a rare variant? But that's already another pet peeve of mine, confusing rare variants with rare coins.

[*Alex]

When  I first  came to this group descriptions were very secondary in my collection . After a few months of brain  washing everything has changed. Detail helps to find rare, unique or possibly unpublished  specimens (I give no consideration to not in RIC,too easy).What do you think of this extremely rare variant of a Constantine I ?

AE follis. Thessalonica (second officina) 312 - 313 AD. 23,53 mm. 4.092 grs. Laureate ( 12 leaves and two knots in ties),draped and cuirassed (12 pteriges on right shoulder) bust right. IMP CONSTANTINVS P F AVG   /   Bearded Jupiter ,smallish ....., standing three quarter facing,head to left, bit of drapery hanging from left shoulder. Holding Victory  on globe (carrying wreath) with left wing down and right wing raised. At feet eagle stumbling left wreath in  beak.  IOVI CONSERVATORI AVGG N N. In exergue dot TS dot B dot.
RIC VI 61b (variant).

Benito

I think my version of this coin, also •TS•B•, is much rarer, not only has it been struck in colour but Jupiter's sceptre is tipped with an orb which is entirely missing from your monochrome issue.  

Alex.

[benito]

Leaving aside the quality of the pic  my Jupiter's scepter has an orb ,hidden behind one of the God's fingers. the pr...is nicer. And the dots are much more regular.
Definetely a rare specimen.

[Joe Sermarini]

Attributions to Sear or HN Italy are not expected to be an exact match.  Vlasto is clearly the best reference to use for Taras but it is extremely time consuming to use.  Too time consuming for cheap low grade, low profit, coins that started this post. 

We pay Forum dollars for corrections.  Don't post them here.  Send them to me by email.  If you want to "correct" these examples for Forum dollars, please include the Vlasto numbers.