I would contend that arrangement by denomination, as practised for example by
MacDowall in his monograph on the coinage of Nero, is the correct route to the
desired goal. It is essential to group like with like. When we try to establish the
original order of types in a particular denomination, we want to examine only that
denomination, not what the mint might have been producing at the same time in other
denominations
I thoroughly agree - one of the most annoying books I often need to use is Svoronos' coinage of the Ptolemies. It has the most muddled arrangement of any book I know. In second place of the muddled stakes is
Price, Coinage of
Alexander III which also, under the various mints, mixes gold staters, tetradrachms, drachms, AE etc together according to fieldmarks.
I also contributed a couple of the new entries in Woytek's book, these
had been sent to me for
wildwinds and I sent them to
Woytek. In order to check the existence of a second example of one of them, I flew to Chester Museum in
England, to see one purporting to have been donated to that museum in the early 1800s. Alas, it was not the same coin (but I
had a lovely time down in the coin vault with the curator [no, not THAT kind of a lovely time
])