What makes a gallery stand out as great?

(1/5) > >>

Ron C2:
Here's a question for those that voted, what made a good gallery stand out to you?

Was it the quality of the photography, the quality of the coins, the accuracy of the description and attribution, or was it the added narrative about placing the coin into context or translating the legends, etc.?

In short, what did many of you feel separated good from great?

Mods: feel free to segment to a new thread if this is too much of a hijack :)

shanxi:

--- Quote from: Ron C2 on February 03, 2022, 08:29:58 am ---what made a good gallery stand out to you?

--- End quote ---

I voted for three galleries that I think are better than mine.

The reasons are:

- Interesting coins
- Good photos
- A good description
- everything well organized

Not important are:

- Rarity
- Value

Enodia:
When I started the Gallery of the Year contest many years ago what I didn't want was a beauty contest or a popularity contest. The idea was to highlight those galleries that were informative and also fun to browse.
With that criteria in mind I look for interesting coins which are well presented and which can teach me something I may not have known before. I like them to be organized in a way that keeps me from having to 'mine' the entry for information, with dates and size or denomination clearly presented. Historical context is absolutely appreciated too.

While quality of image is important it is not essential to me. The same can be said about rarity or value. Not all of us can afford Syracusan decadrachms, but we can all display our coins proudly.

These, I think, are what makes the Forvm galleries a vital resource.

~ Peter

Jay GT4:
I agree! Well organized galleries that are easily navigated with proper attributions are what I look for. I have to admit I also like when some effort is put into providing a good picture. I'm not a fan of chapters worth of background info (some seem to go on forever) but a nice, to the point write up is appreciated.

I've organized my Flavians by RIC number. Makes it easy to see what I'm still after! The rest are organized by city/territory to make it easy.

Ron C2:
Jay, I've largely been with you, though ever since FORUM added the full coin description below each thumbnail in a gallery viewer, I think having too much description makes a gallery look cluttered.

I appreciate all the research some members do to post everything they know about a coin, placing it in historical context. For example, if a Phillip I antoninianus commemorative includes a writeup about Rome's millenial celebration, why the coin was minted, what was going on in the emperor's reign that made him want to mint such coins, etc. But since the gallery views changed so that all that text appears under each thumbnail, I've grown to find long descriptions irritating - I can't help it.

Personally, I've been keeping my descriptions to the essentials lately. Here's an example from a random coin in my gallery:

Coin title, the part that is bolded under the thumbnails view: Ariarathes V Eusebes Philopator Drachm HGC 7, 811

And the description you get if you click on the coin, but it's also now pasted under the title in smaller font when browsing gallery thumbnails (annoying!!):

--- Quote ---Ariarathes V Eusebes Philopator AR drachm

4.03g, 20.0mm, 0 degrees, Kingdom of Cappadocia. Mazaka-Eusebeia (Kayseri, Turkey) mint, Regnal year 33 (130 BCE)

Attribution: HGC 7, 811.

O: Diademed head right.

R: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ AΡIAΡAΘOY EYΣEBOYΣ, Athena Nikephoros standing left; monogram to inner left and ΓΑ(E) to outer right; in exergue, ΓΛ.

Ex-Pars Coins Auction 21 (15 Dec 2021) Lot 61, EX-Economopoulos Numismatics No. 12000957.
--- End quote ---

At times, I almost think this is too much info, but am at a loss what to cut further. I give the dimensions, mint, year, attribution, O and R descriptions in typical format, and whatever provenance I have. That's it.

Based on the feedback in this thread so far, I almost feel like now I should add in a little writeup about who the issuer was, why they minted this style coin, maybe a description of where Cappadocia is, etc. It seems like people either really like this, or are really turned off by that kind of detail.

Honestly - I feel if we went back to the old format, people would appreciate more detailed writeups much more!?!?

So what do other people add to their descriptions that most people would like, beyond the examples I've given here? Enquiring minds want to know :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version