Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;curtislclay, post: 5738943, member: 89514&quot;]RIC 2972 includes both bust types, unfortunately, since Abdy does not give separate bust codes for what he considers &quot;minor embellishments on busts added at the whim of a die cutter&quot;, such as aegis or Medusa head on shoulder or belt running across the emperor&#039;s chest (see p. xi, &#039;Abbreviations&#039;). Abdy does note these &quot;embellishments&quot; in his listing of specimens, but the same catalogue number applies to both the ordinary and the &quot;embellished&quot; specimens.</p><p><br /></p><p>Yet Martin&#039;s coin with fold of cloak on front shoulder is a new variety to RIC, since Abdy records only three specimens of this denarius, all noted as having aegis not just fold of cloak on shoulder. Unfortunately however it gets the same catalogue number as these three recorded specimens with aegis.</p><p><br /></p><p>The new RIC Hadrian is without doubt a splendid achievement, but I am disappointed that to a certain degree it will be carrying on a small but annoying shortcoming of Strack&#039;s Hadrian catalogue of 1933, namely the use of the same bust code for three different bust types, &quot;Head only&quot;, &quot;Bust with fold of cloak on front shoulder&quot;, and &quot;Bust with fold of aegis on front shoulder&quot;. Distinguishing these three varieties will not help us to reconstruct the chronology of the coinage, Strack argued, to which Mattingly rightly answered in his review of Strack, that it was nonetheless the duty of cataloguers to separate them and record them as different in their catalogues.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

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