So whats the deal with unpublished coins

PISIDIA. Isinda. Ae (1st century BC). Ae.
Obv: Hermes Head wearing petasos. Kerykeion behind.
Rev: ΙΣ-ΙΝ. Trident.
Weight 2,50 gr - Diameter 10 mm.

Hello all, so I recently bid on this coin that was labelled by the auction house as "apparently unpublished".
I am new to greek city state coinage so I am not an expert or have any reference material for these types of coins. I dont see it included on wildwinds, but then again, not all coins exist on wildwinds if im not wrong.

What do you guys think of this and what is usually the deal with unpublished coins, towwards "publishing" them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

You could upload these pics with size and weight, and the following prompt : "Dear ChatGPT ..." - well, let's be serious. The best would be to send an email to some specialist.

 

It very much depends on what "apparently unpublished" means. It generally means "I couldn't find it in the references I have available to me" which doesn't necessarily mean the same thing. It is useful in such cases to see what references they cite it is being unlisted in because this at least should tell you where they have looked. If this seems to cover the "major references" for the type of coin then you are one step forward. If you know what the "major references" and potentially some more "up to date references" are and it isn't in them then the next step would be to find someone working on updating one of the established "major references" or producing a new reference covering these issues.

What aspect of the coin is it that makes it unpublished?

Online databases are great but does inclusion in them make them "published"?

Let me give you an example of a Roman Imperial from my collection and how I dealt with it.

Obv:- IMP C M AR (sic) PROBVS AVG, Radiate, cuirassed bust right
Rev:- VIRTVS AVGVSTI, Mars walking right, holding spear and trophy
Minted in Lugdunum (//II) Emission 1 Officina 2. October 276 A.D.



RIC is still widely considered to be the primary reference for Roman Imperial coins.
RIC V Pt 2 - 58 Bust Type F var. (obverse legend)
But RIC V was published in 1933 and is woefully out of date for Probus. I still note it because people still use it as a primary reference tool.

I am not aware of anyone working on updating RIC V Pt 2.

People still refer to Cohen even though it was published in 1884.
Cohen 858 var. (obverse legend)

I don't look at general references like Sear.... as they are highly unlikely to cover anything this precise. I do sometimes look at general references such as ERIC II, Encyclopedia of Roman Imperial Coins by Rasiel Suarez, 2010. I move on having noted that this obverse legend error is not included in the list of oberse legends and thus the coin will not be in there.

Le monnayage de l 'atelier de Lyon - De la réouverture de l 'atelier par Aurélien à la mort de Carin (fin 274-mi 285). Numismatique Romaine IX. P. Bastien. (Wetteren, 1976) is a more up to date reference.

I note that it not in Bastien, nor is it included in either of the two supplements that have come out wth addenda since.

Le monnayage de l 'atelier de Lyon - Supplément I (Bastien-Amandry-Gauthier) (274 - 413). Numismatique Romaine XV. (Wetteren, 1989).

Le monnayage de l 'atelier de Lyon - Supplément II (Amandry-Estiot-Gauthier) (43 av. J.-C. - 413 ap. J.-C). Numismatique Romaine XXI. (Wetteren, 2003).

I make a note - Bastien -, Bastien Suppl I -. Bastien Suppl II -.

I do note along the way that my coin is from the same obverse die as Bastien Suppl. II: 154α (3 examples cited), which is the same reverse type but officina 3 (III in exe).

I happen to know that Dr. Sylviane Estiot (Research Director) at the CNRS (Centre national de la recherche scientifique) is part of the team upating these publications and working towards a 3rd supplement to Bastien. I have here contact details and send her an email with the details of my coin. This coin is now scheduled for inclusion in Bastien Suppl III when it is published at some point in the future.