I have seen coins described (attributed) in almost as many ways as there are coins. Can anyone tell me if there is a generally accepted way that is more popular (recognized) than the 'others', please? (par example) JULIAN II Aquileia RIC VIII 218 JULIAN II RIC VIII Aquileia 218 JULIAN II RIC.VIII.Aquileia.218 JULIAN II RIC VIII 218 Aquileia and any combination of the above.
Hmm. I don't know the answer to your question of how to properly cite the later RIC volumes. Perhaps a stroll through CNG's archives would be the best way to see. Noob-- I don't remember an attribution protocol post by Ardatirion but I do recall his post about how to cite pedigrees (which I've read twice and still forget to do correctly . Sorry, Ardy-- I'll try harder in the future )
How bout this ... Ruler => (eg. Julian-II), (coin-city and/or coin name), (coin metal, eg. AR and denomination) Mint Date Diameter Weight Obverse Reverese Reference Other Comments ehhh? => it's what I do
i don't think it's something to worry about so much TC. if you look at my flip inserts you'd see i don't worry about it much either.
Thank-you ALL (Steve, A.N., T.I.F., Val.), for your contributions. You have confirmed that there is no 'Industry Standard' style of 'referencing' a coin. A.N. - I appreciate that Ardatirion may have given a wonderful explanation of this, but without a link (or reference) what can I do? T.I.F. - I checked CNG and they rely heavily on a description and the 'reference' comes almost as an afterthought, at the end. I checked your reference to an offering by Ardatirion, and, hopefully, it is the one that A.N. was referring to. Again, more than I was looking for (unfortunately). Steve. - I do put (most of) that information into my 'spreadsheet', already. It is nice to know that I am on the same wavelength a another in that regard. I am looking to reference the photographs, and the 2x2s. Val. - That is more like what I was talking about. Your 'preference' is the same as I am coming across in other places, (Wildwinds etc.). Unlike some other collectors, the 'quality' of my collection just isn't there, so my collection is unlikely to ever be seen by anyone apart from me. Therefore, by adopting a 'shorthand' form of 'reference' and allowing me, (or anyone else) to look that reference up elsewhere (RIC, Wildwinds, Acsearch etc.) when interested, would suffice for my requirements, and involve less writing than a full-blown description. Again, thank you all.
Thanks Chris. Good to hear from you. You 'popped' one in there while I was responding to the others. It sounds like what I will do is similar to what you do do.
While I agree that Valentinian's answer is best, I like to include the page number in place of or in addition to the mint. If nothing else, it frees you from memorizing the order of the mints ("All three lions are roaring at six silly tigers happy children need candy almost always" is ridiculous, can you do a better one???).
It's a mnemonic for the order of mints in RIC VIII: All (Amiens) Three (Trier) Lions (Lugdunum) Are (Arelate) Roaring (Rome) At (Aquileia) Six (Siscia) Silly (Sirmium) Tigers (Thessalonica) Happy (Heraclea) Children (Constantinople) Need (Nicomedia) Candy (Cyzicus) Almost (Antioch) Always (Alexandria) What about Mediolanum (Milan)? I don't have any RIC books and can't easily find the order of mint listings, but one website had the mints listed in an order which otherwise fit with Doug's mnemonic and Mediolanum was listed between Arelate and Rome. Regardless, Doug's mnemonic is certainly easier to remember than a dry list of the mint names. Perhaps add "...lions are madly roaring at..."?
Thanks Doug, T.I.F. Am I missing something? Is there a purpose in having the Mints in a particular order?
If you are going to list mints, they will be in some order. Traditionally, they have been listed left-to-right (west to east) across a map, as far as possible. Mathematically, it is not possible to order two-dimensional space in a single line, so there will always be the possibility of alternative arrangements. For ancient coins, one question has been where to put Carthage in the list. Do we wrap around the Mediterranean and put it after Alexandria, or put it near Rome and the rest of Italy because it is physically not too far away? RIC puts it close to Rome (which is probably a good idea for late Roman coins), but some Greek coin catalogs put it after Alexandria.
Milan had two coins in this volume, both gold, one a multiple R5. People who own solidi have to fend for themselves.
I keep my coins in RIC order which means you need to know which mint comes in what order. If everyone would give a page number or if the authors had numbered the mints, we need not bother but I only remember this an the Siscia before Sirmium and Antioch before Alexandria business. I admit a perfect world would not have had three mints beginning with A but it is what it is. All of my records include the page numbers for my convenience.
