Thanks for your input. Not sure what's going on entirely. The first page link you have shows dozens identical images of a single bronze coin with a single British Museum catalog
number, each listing with a different weight
, and it is classified as a 'silver decadrachm'. Maybe they haven't photographed all the specimens and use the single image as a place-holder. It's hard to interpret such nonsense on a site that obviously took a great deal of effort to build. The IT is beautiful, the content... sometimes not so much.
Here's another PCO page that's fun:http://numismatics.org/pco/id/cpe.1_2.B290
This page refers to 24 specimens of Lorber CPE
B290, and has 21 coin photos and listings. Out of the 21 coins shown, it looks like one actually *is* a specimen of B290. Can you find it? In this case it's the catalogers who appear to have erred - at a rate exceeding 95%. The catalogued types
of most of them don't even correspond to the site's namesake - the CPE book itself.
You may also get a smile out of the nonsensical 'average
' die axis
calculation. Die axes
aren't scalar values (like weights
) so you can't just average
them like ordinary numbers; they are directions (they are vectors) so 3h + 9h does not average
to 6h, those 'average
' to (null
). It's not a hard calculation to average
some vectors, but someone has to be both numismatically *and* mathematically aware of what die axes
mean. And the folks who make these sites clearly are not, so what's even the point of the ridiculous calculated values?
These sites are released with social media blasts and accompanying praise and fanfare and the folks who are responsible for them are pretty sensitive about their problems. Beautiful, indeed they are. Reliable research tools
, not. They are nevertheless useful for what they can actually do well. They give pointers that may lead to useful data. For example, the photos and listings on the 'B290' page are great - and do include one that I actually was looking for.
The technical achievement is (mostly) brilliant and we can hope
the content will catch up some day. An enormous amount of ANS
(read: grant funding) and time have been expended to develop these very complex sites and we can hope
a small fraction of that fortune will some day make the data on the sites as useful as possible. The sponsors' priorities aren't clear and we could be in for a long wait. New sites (e.g. the recent Antigonid Coins Online) seem to appear faster than data on existing ones is being updated. PtolemAE