all references of the same coin on CNG describe it as an OX so I will change it to that
CNG of course gets its information from the same places as everyone else - commonly used catalogues, the same books that you or me refer to. With
rare exceptions, I wouldn't suppose anyone at
CNG (or at any mainstream coin dealer) is doing independent research about what this, or any other coin scene, represents, unless they explicitly say so by means of end-notes to a listing,
typically identified as dealer's own opinion by being placed in italics. There are a variety of sources for descriptions:
Crawford, Seaby's
Roman Silver Coins (which takes its information direct from
Babelon),
Grueber BMCRR, each of more or less equal
merit. So it's pretty much a random selection whose description any coin seller takes. It might be simply a question of the cataloguer reaching for the nearest book to hand. Indeed some older sources e.g.
Smyth (Duke of
Northumberland coll.) may have more
merit than some modern sources.
If one were to think originally about this, or any other coin scene, how should one do so? Well, first, check what the main references to hand say.
Crawford, RSC/Babelon,
Grueber, possibly
Smyth, Echkel, Orsini. Then consider whether the interpretations are exactly the same or differ. If the interpretations are unchanged since 1550, there's probably
merit in them, and little scope for further thinking. If there are varations, then look to the arguments. Then familiarise yourself with the source of the stories - typically Livy, or Polybius, or 19th century compendiums about Roman myths - and see what makes sense, and most importantly, see does the coin image really match with the ancient literature description. Then, having done some basic research, it is time to explore new options. Anyone can explore such new options, but it's a
good idea to have the basic existing descriptions, and their rationales, under one's belt in the first place, so as to argue a new idea with confidence. There are aspects of Harlan's new book that I am unhappy about (for example
his proposed rationale for re-dating the coins,
his SC theory, and the confused and contradictory way in which he considers
hoards, all-in-all leading to very misleading dating), but
his new analysis on the
type descriptions contains a lot of original thinking.
