When you are seeking Roman coins to buy, would you rather the site have coins organized chronologically by emperor with Roman provincial coins intermingled with Roman Imperial coins, or have the provincial coins separated out in a different place?
I prefer separation of Romans by Republic, Imperatorial, Provincial, and Imperial. I'm accustomed to seeing Provincials arranged as per Eckhel's order of geographic presentation. Lately I've seen a number of sellers and auction houses who mix their Imperials and provincials, ordering them chronologically by ruler. It will be interesting to see which system other people prefer.
Hmmmm, It seems I originally preferred #2, but now that I'm interested in both equally I prefer them listed chronologically and intermingled...I suppose it makes it easier to compare prices and so on by Emperor that way----not to mention the reverses of each.
i am collecting from augustus to posthumus, is for me beter to handle!!!. there are a lot coins i prefer the first sestertius years
I think I agree with this if I real the second line to mean "first by ruler, then by Eckhel." I'm not ready to have my Julia Domna of Alexandria next to my Nero of Alexandria but not near my Domna of Antioch.
I meant it as strictly geographical. It looks like there are now three options being discussed: 1. Have all Imperial and Provincials together in a chronological list, keeping emperors/empresses together. I suppose civic issues (without bust or legend of the ruler) would be inserted into the proper timeline slot? 2. Imperials and Provincials separate; Provincials listed first by geography; within each city/region, chronologically by ruler (this is how CNG and others do it) 3. Imperials and Provincials separate; Provincials each listed strictly chronologically.
=> they should obviously be sorted by animal type (I am forced to search through all of the chaff in order to find the wheat!!)
Surely no one does this? My Year 2 and 4 Domnas of Alexandria have the year three Caesarea between them? In all honesty, the only thing I really like about Eckhel is that it is well established. It is only Geographic by region and alphabetic within. There is no good and easy answer since few of us can tell which cities are where and could fill in a blank outline map with the names (for that matter few of us could do that with 50 states, 10 provinces and 3 territories??? or (insert here a number between 9 and infinity that applies those who live in the UK). Top that with how the divisions changed between 500 BC and whatever end date you collect and alphabetical starts looking good. Then when we deal with cities that changed names or spell differently according to who you read and I'm back to accepting Eckhel for lack of a better answer.
I misunderstood and thought that was what you were advocating. You're right... there is no one clearly superior method.
The reason I dont like it geographical is because it makes for more clicking. When dealers do that to provincials I automatically skip that portion of the stock because its too much clicking. If I want to find a provincial of Commodus, I have to wad through it or do a simple search, where as by emperor, its a simple click on Commodus and see whats available. Mind you this is the Vcoins style on some dealers. Now dealers like bargain bin ancients, they provincials are lumped together but the alexandrians are separate, which I dont mind. And Forvm has them by emperor, which I like.
I prefer imperials and provincials separated. Imperials chronologically by emperor (RIC), provincials geographically by region (RPC). Fortunately, I collect a niche that is well served by updated RIC and RPC catalogues.
On further reconsideration....I prefer the overall methodology that V-70 prefers---but I simply adjust to whatever system comes my way at auction...
