Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
A Bastien Intermediate follis (plus a discussion of early London mint coinage)
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="jamesicus, post: 4650793, member: 14873"]Yes, you are right, [USER=76733]@Kiaora[/USER] - I am getting too old to be doing this anymore - I am losing my grip<img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />! Nice catch, by the way.</p><p><br /></p><p>I have corrected that post via edit.</p><p><br /></p><p>Actually I was using that as an example of how difficult to use Sutherland has made his Cataloging of (especially early) London mint coins - hard to follow and confusing (as you pointed out earlier). I think Group I, class II is particularly irksome. I do not understand why he had to split it into (a) and (b) - why split it at all? He could have explained the classification and identification nuances quite easily by properly explaining them in the text. As it is, collectors and dealers are faced with the problem of determining what exactly are “small heads” (by laurel wreath size maybe?) and “tall necks” what is a “shorter neck”- (by how much - do you include cuirass height?). I think there has been an awful lot of misattributions of this series of coins due to assessing head size and neck length which is quite variable. Just look at my posted example of 6a (Diocletian) and compare it with the same coin in plate I of RIC, vol. VI. They both have about the same tall neck height. Now look at the neck height of your posted example of 6a - the neck height is proportionally considerably shorter - almost a “shorter neck” according to the RIC cataloging. I have encountered this kind of thing innumerable times over the years. I don’t think we should require collectors to measure (eyeball) head size and neck length this way in order to attribute their coins.</p><p><br /></p><p>I wish Harold Mattingly would have lived long enough to write a Tetrarchic coin BMCRE Volume - I would bet his cataloging of the London mint coinage would have been a lot better organized - and far less confusing than RIC![/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="jamesicus, post: 4650793, member: 14873"]Yes, you are right, [USER=76733]@Kiaora[/USER] - I am getting too old to be doing this anymore - I am losing my grip:)! Nice catch, by the way. I have corrected that post via edit. Actually I was using that as an example of how difficult to use Sutherland has made his Cataloging of (especially early) London mint coins - hard to follow and confusing (as you pointed out earlier). I think Group I, class II is particularly irksome. I do not understand why he had to split it into (a) and (b) - why split it at all? He could have explained the classification and identification nuances quite easily by properly explaining them in the text. As it is, collectors and dealers are faced with the problem of determining what exactly are “small heads” (by laurel wreath size maybe?) and “tall necks” what is a “shorter neck”- (by how much - do you include cuirass height?). I think there has been an awful lot of misattributions of this series of coins due to assessing head size and neck length which is quite variable. Just look at my posted example of 6a (Diocletian) and compare it with the same coin in plate I of RIC, vol. VI. They both have about the same tall neck height. Now look at the neck height of your posted example of 6a - the neck height is proportionally considerably shorter - almost a “shorter neck” according to the RIC cataloging. I have encountered this kind of thing innumerable times over the years. I don’t think we should require collectors to measure (eyeball) head size and neck length this way in order to attribute their coins. I wish Harold Mattingly would have lived long enough to write a Tetrarchic coin BMCRE Volume - I would bet his cataloging of the London mint coinage would have been a lot better organized - and far less confusing than RIC![/QUOTE]
Your name or email address:
Do you already have an account?
No, create an account now.
Yes, my password is:
Forgot your password?
Stay logged in
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
A Bastien Intermediate follis (plus a discussion of early London mint coinage)
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...