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: Urbs roma  (Read 1637 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline antvwala

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7195
Re: Urbs roma
« Reply #25 on: August 20, 2023, 03:07:42 pm »
I see the issue of "not in RIC" coins as much more complicated than it may seem at first glance. I think Helvetica can confirm my words, or deny them.
The first point to really clarify, especially in the case of the bronzes of the middle and lower empire, is: "what does not mean in RIC?". Is a different legend than expected a "not in RIC" or a simple error?
I have been writing a book on the Aeneas coinage of Valentinian III for a year and, of course, I use the RIC X as a fundamental reference.
In it there are 62 types of nummi and in my archive of about 3-4000 coins I have at least as many which I should define as "not in RIC". But is it right to really consider them different and unedited typologies, or rather mistakes? Friend Helvetica: would you place it in your magnificent tables as a different typology?
I give an example: RIC X 2140-41 is a number of Valentinian III with the legend VOT XV on the reverse. This specimen that I propose to you has the legend VL. Is it a simple curious error or is it a not in Ric?

I posted this post in this same discussion, but perhaps it deserves to open a separate discussion due to its breadth and possibility of broad discussion.

Offline antvwala

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7195
Re: Urbs roma
« Reply #26 on: August 20, 2023, 03:17:33 pm »
The same is true for this Porta di Campo of Valentinian III (RIC X 2123) with the legend DNPLAVALENTINIANVSF instead of DNVALENTINIANVSPFAVG: is it a different typology or an (anachronistic) error by the engraver? Or said in another way, was there the will to mint a coin with the reference to Galla Placidia or did that PLA escape the engraver due to distraction (and therefore by mistake)?
As you can see, answering the question "what does not in Ric mean" is far from easy!

Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: Urbs roma
« Reply #27 on: August 20, 2023, 03:48:58 pm »
Each volume of RIC is based on a slightly different convention. So you should respect as much as possible the convention of a given RIC volume, and when you find a coin which (according to this convention!) should be listed in RIC but is not, then you can say that you find a coin which is "not in RIC".

However, in practice this convention is not strictly respected. Even the authors of RIC are not absolutely consistent in their work. Once a certain variety is listed under a separate number. Then again, it is only listed in a footnote or treated together with another variety etc. For example, sometimes the decoration of altar in VLPP series (RIC VII) makes a separate RIC number, but usually not.

And what about reverse legend breaks. For gold and silver they are often important (in RIC VI and VII) but sometimes not and for bronzes only rarely.

Another issue is coins with errors. Sometimes we can say with a high degree of certainty that an error is an error, but sometimes not. However, even if they are obviously errors, they are worth to note. RIC VI and VII often list them in footnotes.

The same with "irregular coins". Of course only official coin could be really "not in RIC", but some of these "barbarous imitations" are quite good and can be wrongly regarded (especially by novices) as official unlisted coins. Personally, I list them in a separate section.
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline antvwala

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7195
Re: Urbs roma
« Reply #28 on: August 20, 2023, 03:58:55 pm »
Yes: but it is very difficult to distinguish when a variant is really official or not, especially in the bronze of the late empire. For Valentinian III, Kent attributes particular importance to the presence/absence of the acronym of the Officina and of the mint, but neglects important differences in the iconography and defines the legends V10 and V11 respectively DN VALENTINIANO etc and DNVALЄN AVG etc, thus merging very different legends or not allowing to distinguish them. The nominative legend is important: so what, is a legend written VALЄNTINI, without the DN, a not in Ric?
The very concept of "not in Ric" is very ambiguous for the bronzes of the late empire, and also for the Vrbs Rome.

Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: Urbs roma
« Reply #29 on: August 20, 2023, 04:12:56 pm »
The same is true for this Porta di Campo of Valentinian III (RIC X 2123)

RIC X is not my area of expertise, so I can only ask.

Are you sure that this coin is official?

Are you sure that the legend is D N PLA VALENTINIANVS F? For me only D N PLA VALENTINIAN... is readable.

Legend D N PLA VALENTINIANVS P F AVG is listed in RIC X (p. 363, V5). So maybe it is unlisted legend for this particular type.
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline antvwala

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7195
Re: Urbs roma
« Reply #30 on: August 20, 2023, 04:20:15 pm »
Yes, it is definitely an official coin.
The important aspect is not the absence of the AVG ending, but the presence of the PLA particle in a date in which it should not have been. I believe that the engraver inattentively engraved the PLA and then, going on to engrave the legend, he found himself running out of space and no longer put the final AVG.
But this reasoning does not answer the question: is it or is it not a "not in RIC"?

But I have many similar cases on my hands....

Perhaps we make the mistake of attributing a dogmatic role to the RIC, rather than a simple cataloging tool with its limitations. But questioning the RIC is always complicated...

Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: Urbs roma
« Reply #31 on: August 20, 2023, 06:29:56 pm »
But this reasoning does not answer the question: is it or is it not a "not in RIC"?

If you are pretty sure that this legend is an engraver's error then this coin should be listed (or rather mentioned in footnote) after RIC X 2123 with this very remark: "engraver's error".

In such case this coin is not a "not in RIC", i.e. not a correctly made official coin, but it is still worth to note.

Perhaps we make the mistake of attributing a dogmatic role to the RIC, rather than a simple cataloging tool with its limitations.

What do you mean by "a dogmatic role"? Perhaps nobody believes that RIC is free of errors, that all issues are already known and set in correct chronological order etc. On my "Not in RIC" there are more than 600 corrections and more than 6000 varieties not listed/mentioned in RIC VI and VII. So how could I be dogmatic about RIC?
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Online Callimachus

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
Re: Urbs roma
« Reply #32 on: August 20, 2023, 08:08:36 pm »
1. Quote from antvwala (above, July 10, 2023): “I won't be posting any more images because I downloaded them from auctions or ebay and the owner of one of these coins has called my attention to posting that image without his consent. Obviously, I cannot know who bought the coin from the auction or from ebay, and therefore I cannot ask for consent from time to time: therefore, to avoid protests from the owners of the coins, I will no longer post the images of the Vrbs Roma.”

2. Quote from antvwala (above, July 10, 2023):  “. . .  but the owner of a Vrbs Roma coin openly complained on the FAC about the fact that in a summary image of my database there was a coin of his and that he hadn't authorized me to publish it. Nor could I have asked for his authorization, since it was downloaded from a commercial site and therefore I could not know who was the owner of that coin, like almost all those in my database.”

3. Quote from antvwala (above, Aug 20, 2023): “ . . . but a member of this forum complained that in a table with various photographs there was one that was his property and he reproached me harshly that he had never authorized me to publish this image.”

4. Quote from antvwala (above, Aug 20, 2023): “Since this forista who got so angry because inside a table with about twenty coins one was his is probably reading us, let him have the courage to intervene and have his say, rather than remain hidden.”

My reply to the above 4 quotes of antvwala:

The horrible person being referred to here is probably me. Reading the above postings by antvwala I seem get worse with each one.

See this thread where it all started:
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=131371.msg785113#msg785113

I was surprised to see a coin of mine being used in antvwala’s table and posted on this thread on May 10, 2023.  My May 10 reply to this thread said:

“While looking through Antvwala's large image (above), I noticed a photo I took of one of the coins in my collection. I know I have not given permission to use the photo because no one asked me. . . .  I'd gladly give permission for anyone to use my photo(s) in such a project. I just have to be asked.”

The photo in question was not downloaded from an auction or ebay as he says. It is true, though, that it was downloaded from a commercial site – this one, to be exact. It is a picture I took myself of a coin that I own, and posted in my gallery. Reading my May 10 answer again, I do not think I "reproached [him] harshly," nor did I “get so angry” – you can be the judge on that by reading my reply to him. In fact, I even said I’d gladly give permission, but I just have to be asked. Contacting Forvm members cannot be easier. (And, he never asked my permission, even after getting my reply. I would have given it to him after the fact.)

By the way, The table antvwala refers to in quote #4 has 210 coins on it, not 20. Exaggeration is one thing, but giving a number of less than 10% of that is quite misleading.

It will be noted that I did not bring up the word copyright. Others brought that word (and all it entails) into the discussion. It bothers me a bit that some people here assume I did not take the picture, and advise just to ignore me. In my original May 10 reply, I noted the fact that I was the photographer, but antvwala has chosen not to mention that here.

Finally, it is just common courtesy to ask to use someone else’s work that you find online – writing, photos, or whatever.  Many books have a “picture credits” page at the end, all full of very small print, which thank all those who let the author use their pictures, and then simply lists these sources. A similar page could be designed for something published online.



Offline Jay GT4

  • Tribunus Plebis 2021
  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 6987
  • Leave the gun, take the Canoli!
Re: Urbs roma
« Reply #33 on: August 20, 2023, 11:28:19 pm »
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Urbs roma
« Reply #34 on: August 21, 2023, 07:12:13 am »
Sounds more than reasonable to me!

Offline antvwala

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7195
Re: Urbs roma
« Reply #35 on: August 21, 2023, 01:35:43 pm »
Let's try to put an end to a discussion so useless and so little numismatic.
It all started from the fact that I posted all the images of a cataloging of the nummo Vrbs Rome: images that were the result of a long process of gathering information and that I gladly made available to all those who wanted to use them.
In the case of the unpublished coins of Arles, or not in ric, I was asked what was the source of my information: I showed that those tables were the result of a large collection of images downloaded almost all from auction sites and ebay and I posted the figure with Arles Coin Image Database. This is a personal use database, which was never published, nor intended to be.
At this point, there was an intervention stigmatizing the fact that one of these images was of a "his coin of him" and that I had placed it in the database without his "his permission" of him.
At this point, I gave up placing the clearly visible images of the "not in ric" coins, in order to avoid other susceptibilities.
I find it sad that a collector experiences the sense of ownership of one of his coins so selfishly, extending it also to the image of the same, even though it was taken without authorization only for the purpose of documenting a numismatic topic and increasing knowledge of it.
As specified, the images were collected to build a personal information database, not to be published: for this same reason, I have never noted the source of the same. Even if I wanted to, I couldn't trace her. As already written, almost all of them come from auction sites and ebay: sometimes, as in this case, some images come from some gallery posted on FAC. The one who got so annoyed about the published image wrote that it comes from his gallery and I have no reason not to think so.
I'm not interested in asking him for any permission nor do I think I should ask him for it. I'm 80 years old and it's the first time I've had to deal with people with such an exasperated sensitivity of ownership of the image of a coin of him. I acknowledge this and therefore I will not post the images of the unpublished coins or send them privately
In this post, I have deliberately placed my database of images of the Vrbs Roma of Arles with low resolution in order to avoid that I make the image of a coin visible again without the due authorization of its owner.

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Urbs roma
« Reply #36 on: August 21, 2023, 01:55:28 pm »
I think you're in the wrong here Antwala.

You copied a photo that someone took themselves, of their own coin, from their personal Gallery here on forum, then pretend that you didn't know who's coin it was and act all offended when he very politely says he wished you had asked permission. Being 80 years old is no excuse for being rude.



Offline antvwala

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7195
Re: Urbs roma
« Reply #37 on: August 21, 2023, 03:45:08 pm »
I have downloaded thousands of photos of coins to create a statistic of the types present, 95% from auctions and ebay and a few also from web forums. I have not noted the sources and therefore I do not know who they are. I don't post them anymore. Is that enough for you? Do I have to sprinkle my head with ashes? You are truly ridiculous with your exaggerated sense of ownership of an image when it has had no commercial use. Up until now I've been nice, but I'll say it clearly: you're pissing me off. Ban me from the forum.

Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: Urbs roma
« Reply #38 on: August 21, 2023, 03:47:38 pm »
I think it would be much better if this unnecessary dialogue was as follows:
- Hi, one of these photos is my photo of my coin. Could you please add this information when you publish it.
- Of course, I will add this information with pleasure.

THE END
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity