Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. Please look at the RECENT ADDITIONS and PRICE REDUCTIONS at the top and bottom of the page. All items are guaranteed authentic for eternity! Thanks for supporting Forum with your PURCHASES! Welcome Guest. Please login or register. Point your mouse to a coin in RECENT ADDITIONS or PRICE REDUCTIONS on this page to see the the price. All items are guaranteed authentic for eternity! Thanks for supporting Forum with your PURCHASES!


FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board  |  Numismatic and History Discussions  |  Ancient Coin Webmasters (Moderator: Sorin Teodor)  |  Topic: acsearch.info - an Ancient Coin Search Engine 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  All Go Down Print
Author Topic: acsearch.info - an Ancient Coin Search Engine  (Read 44562 times)
xintaris75
Consul
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 356



« Reply #25 on: July 19, 2009, 04:10:17 pm »

It would be nice if each image is opened in a separate window. Now it simply replaces the previous one and the same window. Difficult for comparing images.
Logged

Ω ΖΕΥ, ΠΑΤΕΡ ΖΕΥ,
ΣΟΝ ΜΕΝ ΟΥΡΑΝΟΥ ΚΡΑΤΟΣ.
ΣΥ Δ' ΕΡΓ' ΕΠ' ΑΝΘΡΩΠΩΝ ΟΡΑΪΣ
ΛΕΩΡΓΑ ΚΑΙ ΘΕΜΙΣΤΑ.
ΣΟΙ ΔΕ ΘΗΡΙΩΝ ΥΒΡΙΣ ΤΕ ΚΑΙ ΔΙΚΗ ΜΕΛΕΙ.
slokind
Tribuna Plebis Perpetua
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6722


Art is an experimental science


WWW
« Reply #26 on: July 19, 2009, 05:21:13 pm »

I found this independently this morning.  The short url's for each coin given right above the picture are an asset.  But I'm a little puzzled.  I found the coin I desperately need to cite (html?id=65138) simply by searching mint emperor subject.  Only that search ID number differs from CA, which I printed out last year (it illustrates a Löbbecke listing, for whose specimen no image was supplied).
Pat L.
Logged
Pscipio
Tribunus Plebis 2009
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3790

Si vis pacem, cole iustitiam


WWW
« Reply #27 on: July 20, 2009, 06:07:42 am »

@James: you should try the search term '"julian II" siscia' since our server ignores all single terms with two characters or less.

@Doug: thank you for the suggestions. The commentary function will be added soon and we will also consider your other propositions.

@xintaris: that should work now.

@Pat: yes, our search ID numbers are different from CA. I am sorry that we can not change that.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank the community for all the comments, the suggestions and the donations! All of this helps us a lot.

Lars
Logged

Leu Numismatik
www.leunumismatik.com
Kurt E
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 826


« Reply #28 on: July 20, 2009, 02:03:11 pm »

Well Done Lars et al!  I have only looked around a bit, but it seems to work well.  A search of Perga Salonina actually came up with more results than previous searches on CoinArchivesStill didn't find the coin I was looking for however LOL.

Kurt
Logged
Jeremy W
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 430



WWW
« Reply #29 on: July 20, 2009, 02:37:52 pm »

Great site, thanks for making it available

Jeremy
Logged
tetradrachm
Guest
« Reply #30 on: July 20, 2009, 03:59:35 pm »

You need to put more information on the main page concerning how to use the search engine.  Are any logical operators other than AND and NOT allowed, like OR ?  Can parentheses be used to group terms?  Is any automatic translation done, as on CoinArchives, e.g. eagle = Adler?  Any spelling variation equivalencies, such as hecte = hekte?

The restriction on search terms to three characters or more is a significant limitation.  My first search on acsearch was for a hekte with a reference of Bodenstedt Emission 36.  It is impossible to guess how Bodenstedt Emission will be abbreviated in a reference term in the coin's attribution listing, so I searched for hekte 36.  This returned every hekte in your system, and it wasn't until I read a previous post here that I figured out what was wrong.  When searching for example for an issue of Constantine X or Ptolemy VI, it again would be very nice to be able to use X or VI as a search term, as "Constantine" and "Ptolemy" both have various spellings depending on the language.

We really need a list of auction houses that provide listings to your database, and the years covered.

A promising start, though.
Logged
quisquam
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 513



« Reply #31 on: July 20, 2009, 04:04:18 pm »

I searched for sestertii of Claudius with the countermark DV and encountered the same problem (limitation to three characters).

Apart from this: excellent work!

Stefan
Logged
kishim
Guest
« Reply #32 on: July 20, 2009, 04:33:03 pm »

Will you keep it free, Lars?
It is fine to charge some, but we would like to know your future plan.
Isn't there any pressure from the data-providing auction houses to restrict the data access from non-professional collectors?
Logged
gibfrog
Guest
« Reply #33 on: July 20, 2009, 10:23:02 pm »

YOUR SITE ROCKS!!!

Add some banner ads for revenue.

Feature all three of your names/sites promeniently so maybe it will drive some coin sales.

Logged
Potator II
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1653


Error communis facit jus


WWW
« Reply #34 on: July 21, 2009, 12:17:08 am »

Good job you've done here, Lars, Simon and Markus.
I've been browsing Romanatic sometimes in the past months and wondering how and when it would be developped....I know now, congratulations

Jean Claude

PS : I've been happy to make a free donation (rather than a forced one  Grin)
Logged

DruMAX
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 432

Pecunia non olet


WWW
« Reply #35 on: July 21, 2009, 06:34:59 am »

Yes, kudos for the great archive. As I said before, the name threw me off a bit. One thing that I found the most useful about CA was not the ancients as much as the middle ages and obscure medals. I have not searched for medals but I searched for middle ages fair and found pretty good results. Thanks!
Logged
Andrew McCabe
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4779



WWW
« Reply #36 on: July 21, 2009, 10:33:41 am »

I'm happy to see this start of a useful site.  As it stands, the database is tiny and shares with Coin Archives a 'bias' toward high value coins since many of the contributing dealers tend to sell expensive items.   If it expands to include the more common coins and the rarities that make appearances in Forvm discussions it will be very useful.  For a collector like me, a catalog of VCoins listings would be more useful than those of Lanz and their peers.

I would look forward to the comment section and, like maridvnum, my first look turned up a matter of 'error' or at least attribution discussion.  Even the best auction catalog will have an ocassional error.  Even the most knowledgable and honest firm will ocassionally list a fake coin.  There needs to be a way to tell that the 'unsold' coin was unsold because the auction firm pulled it as a fake.  This is covered on Forvm.  It would be nice if such changes could be ammended to the database if the owners of the database agree that the change or footnote is warrented.

One way of doing this would be a Forvm style (whether or not a separate category is welcome on this Forvm is Joe's call) encouraging mention and discussion of errors, questions of reading or fake reports found in Acsearch.  Owners of this new resource could review arguments and decide if there should be any notation on the coin.  The downside I see to this is that a few hundred error corrections on lots by any one dealer might leave the impression that the dealer is not as reliable as we might wish. 

I hope the owners of this new service will feel comfortable working with the collecting  community and not just a very small list of auction houses.

Whilst I rarely (if ever!) have a reason to be on the other side of an issue from Doug Smith, I would keep your site just as it is. The significant downside of including a wider source of coins (such as VCoins) is that listings of lower-value coins made for quick sale are very frequently in error when it comes to descriptions of rarer varieties. Whilst the coins listed are assuredly authentic, quite frequently even basic facts such the denomination is wrong when it comes to rarer fractional varieties, and as for catalogue data.... let me not go there. Inclusion of a wider database would inevitably contaminate searches and also lead to a situation where rigorously researched items in printed catalogues are mixed with 5 minute listings, and you don't know which ones have good data. As for commoner coins, I think they will probably be dealt with at some later point in history perhaps by a VCoins sold coins function.

I would be very very wary of including a comment feature. The writers of the catalogues have years of study and decades of numismatic research under their belt. It would be a pity to see the database littered with "I don't like this coin, it looks fake to me", and might quickly lead to the auction houses witthdrawing their consents. As for moderated discussions, I don't know who acsearch.info might appoint who could moderate the expert views already expressed in a catalogue by Italo Vecchi or Curtis Clay. No, please keep it as is.

I would also be very wary of changing or interpreting data provided by auction houses for example on prices or as to the reasons a lot was unsold. It's their data and any comments thereon will necessarily be subjective.

The sole feature I would like to see is purely mechanical - the possibility of more coins listed per page.

regards

Andrew
Logged

maridvnvm
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4189



« Reply #37 on: July 21, 2009, 11:37:47 am »

Even the big, well established firms get their attribution completely wrong. Especially when it comes to mint attribution where the only way to tell the difference between coins is to know the stylistic differences.

I will give the following example:-



http://www.acsearch.info/record.html?id=124759

This is attributed to RIC 101, Mint of Lugdunum. It does in fact come from Siscia and is RIC 776 Bust type H. The coins have the same description but the clouds under the quadriga are a real giveaway if you know that they only occur at Siscia.

A Probus specialist in this field can tell the difference but a general numismatist might not. I do not have decades of numismatic research under my belt but I have specialised in the study of the coinage of Probus and that is the only reason I would question the attribution.

There are other such examples. So is it best to correct them, best to add a note, leaving the original attribution error or leave the entry untouched?

Regards,
Martin
Logged
Pscipio
Tribunus Plebis 2009
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3790

Si vis pacem, cole iustitiam


WWW
« Reply #38 on: July 21, 2009, 11:53:34 am »

@tetradrachm:

- the "or"-search will be added soon, as will automatic translation and a list of providing auction houses.
- the restriction on search terms to three character is bound to a cheaper server. We may change to a more expensive one, but that all costs money and time, so please no hurry - we are quite busy these days.

@quisquam: see above.

@kishim: the search engine is, and will be, free of charge.

@Cliff: banners will be added.

@Drumax: the medieval coins are in the search engine in error. They will be moved to the new search engine for medieval coins we hope to launch somewhat later.

Lars
Logged

Leu Numismatik
www.leunumismatik.com
Hydatius
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 972


I love this forum!


WWW
« Reply #39 on: July 21, 2009, 03:56:49 pm »

The big auction houses make mistakes all the time (in fact, I have benefited from such mistakes, especially when the catalogues are wrong or confusing too!), but I have heard it said that a comments section will eventually be available on acsearch. If that's true then let's all treat it as a wiki project and make sure that everything in our own sphere of knowledge is accurate. Then it will truly become a site that belongs to everyone: poor collectors, rich collectors, scholars, and numismatists. Depending on the server size there might even be room for discussion threads attached to each coin. I have been really impressed with the detailed knowledge of Constantinian collectors here and especially on Ancients.info. Imagine what a resource we'd have if some of them could contribute to the descriptions!  Wow!

Richard
Logged

Non tam praeclarum est scire Latine quam turpe nescire.
slokind
Tribuna Plebis Perpetua
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6722


Art is an experimental science


WWW
« Reply #40 on: July 21, 2009, 05:30:05 pm »

Since in scholarly articles one needs to link to acresearch.info to give access to a picture to readers who may live where they don't have half a century of sale catalogues, it may be important that the link provide precisely the same information as the hard copy catalogue.  I just was put through the wringer updating all the links provided for those readers in a little article dealing with exceptionally rare coins.  I should be grateful, since the url given for each one is in a very small font, if it wasn't also made pale gray by eliminating every other pixel.  That may look stylish, but I got bleary-eyed even using a 4X reading glass in checking to make sure I had each one correct.  Otherwise, it's fine just as is.  Prices?  Who cares?  The coin most important for my article didn't even sell when listed last.  It ought, but it didn't.
Pat L.
Logged
Andrew McCabe
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4779



WWW
« Reply #41 on: July 22, 2009, 03:51:54 pm »

Even the big, well established firms get their attribution completely wrong.
......
There are other such examples. So is it best to correct them, best to add a note, leaving the original attribution error or leave the entry untouched?

Regards, Martin

I prefer to leave the entry untouched. Not for the times when the cataloguer was plain wrong, but to protect against the times when alternate views are just that - alternate views. Very often there are wide ranging opinions on matters such as exact dates, what mintmark ABC stands for etc. Who is to say who is the expert? There are many places to discuss these but not on an archival entry of published material. I feel about this somewhat like I would feel if I buy a book and find "corrections" to coin attributions written throughout when in fact I just wanted the original opinion of the author. Take Estruscan coinage for example. There is a straightforward difference of views between Rutter in Historia Numorum Italy, and Vecchi in his catalogue notes for CNG (this difference is actually discussed in Rutter's HNI). I don't need anyone to "correct" Vechhi's views when I read CNG catalogues. And I don't think added notes on an online catalogue entry are the place to discuss these things. Bear in mind the original cataloguer has no way of replying, so there is maybe a 99.7% chance that any new comments are in disagreement, and a fair chance that a fair proportion of comments will be junk. Forums are not balanced, those who agree with the original material do not speak out, only those who shout "fake" or "wrong date" get published right or wrong. The archived catalogue entry is what it is, it's an historical record, and it gets damaged by allowing comments. I'm sure the auction houses would feel the same way.

I guess I am somewhat easier about being able to add unobtrusive comments but even there, given the complete inability (and probably unwillingness) of the original authors to reply I would have ground rules about not being able to shout "fake" etc. In the end though, if you govern it by rules then I think it is probably better not to allow notes, instead have a separate forum where anything can be discussed with perhaps a tag that says "this coin was discussed in forum" but otherwise the original archival entry to remain untouched.

All this is just my opinion but I guess it comes from business experience that says "don't mess with the archived record".

Andrew



Logged

slokind
Tribuna Plebis Perpetua
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6722


Art is an experimental science


WWW
« Reply #42 on: July 22, 2009, 05:37:29 pm »

Andrew is exactly right.  Any archive is an historical record in its own right, even if only of the tendency of cataloguers to say 'cippus' whenever they don't know what to call a post, and the like.
Pat L.
Logged
maridvnvm
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4189



« Reply #43 on: July 23, 2009, 04:05:19 am »

I take your point but we also have to consider that many people will use this site not as a true archive but as an attribution aid as people use Wildwinds.

Here we have a coin that could be attributed to several RIC entries that all match the description of the coin and the only way to differentiate between them is by style. Many people are not aware of this and stop at the first RIC entry that matches the description, in this case RIC 101.

In this case we end up with a simple error being compounded as people use this information as being correct as it is being directly associated with a major auction house whose authority on such matters is taken as being almost absolute. I believe that we should leave the original entry intact but to have an additional field somewhere where notes on such errors can be made. The addition of such additional information could / should be strictly controlled. Not doing so would in my opinion be an opportunity missed. Perhaps I am viewing this tool from a different perspective but I would want an online attribution aid to be as accurate as it is possible to make it. If it is intended as an archive of the catalogs then my argument holds no water but I suppose what should be done would rather depend on the intended purpose of the site.

Incidentally Wildwinds has a similar error for the same RIC entry but they have a Cyzicus unmarked coin of the same type misattributed.

The entry in question has now been removed from view in the database. I am sorry if I crossed a line somewhere in mentioning this entry.

Regards,
Martin
Logged
esnible
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 860



WWW
« Reply #44 on: July 23, 2009, 08:54:29 am »

So is it best to correct them, best to add a note, leaving the original attribution error or leave the entry untouched?

Regards,
Martin

My preference would be for it to look the the galleries, where the original entry is preserved and anyone can add comments.  Comments can be for attribution errors, tooling, praise, links to other appearances, etc.

My second choice would be to leave the original error, but have italicized bracketed comments like "[Actually, it's RIC 123 - Ed]" or "(sic)" directly following the error.
Logged
Robert_Brenchley
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Online Online

Posts: 7328

Honi soit qui mal y pense.


WWW
« Reply #45 on: July 23, 2009, 10:51:30 am »

I think you need a system for correcting errors, but it shouldn't be unmoderated or set so anyone can put comments. Maybe it should be a case of contacting the firm which originally attributed it? I hope they'd be willing to own up to errors, since everyone makes them!
Logged

Robert Brenchley

My gallery: http://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=10405
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
ecoli
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1139


Every coin is sacred, every coin is great.


« Reply #46 on: July 23, 2009, 03:15:20 pm »

Question:  Why does a search of Alexandria return nothing?
Logged

areich
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8791



WWW
« Reply #47 on: July 23, 2009, 03:49:57 pm »

Maybe they're working on it?
I get: Results 1-20 of 5403 for Alexandria.

Andreas
Logged

ecoli
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1139


Every coin is sacred, every coin is great.


« Reply #48 on: July 23, 2009, 04:46:36 pm »

Yeah, now it works
Logged

Pscipio
Tribunus Plebis 2009
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3790

Si vis pacem, cole iustitiam


WWW
« Reply #49 on: April 10, 2013, 03:25:20 am »

I thought it would be worthwile to let people know that we were able to add the Gorny & Mosch (Munich, Germany) auctions from 2001 onwards (nos. 108-208) to our free database, a total of c. 60'000 ancient and 20'000 modern coins. This is an important expansion of our database, especially for ancient coins.

Lars
Logged

Leu Numismatik
www.leunumismatik.com
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  All Go Up Print 
FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board  |  Numismatic and History Discussions  |  Ancient Coin Webmasters (Moderator: Sorin Teodor)  |  Topic: acsearch.info - an Ancient Coin Search Engine « previous next »
Jump to:  

Recent Price Reductions in Forum's Shop


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 1.55 seconds with 70 queries.
zoom.asp