Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Gavin Richardson, post: 2717933, member: 83956&quot;]So I stole that subject line from Doug Smith. Sorry. Also, this may be a longish post. Sorry again.</p><p><br /></p><p>But based on some passing recommendations I’ve encountered on this forum, I just bought Guido Bruck’s <i>Late Roman Bronze Coinage: An attribution guide for poorly preserved coins</i>, recently translated into English by Alisdair Menzies. I bought the paperback version from Amazon for about $25.00. I have had the book less than 24 hours, but I thought I would share some initial impressions. Perhaps I can update this thread as I work more with the book. First, 3 quick observations, and then an object lesson on the use and limits of this book.</p><p><br /></p><p>1. If you’re looking for a general introduction to late Roman bronze coinage, this slim volume is probably not the book for you. Indeed, there are only 13 pages of introductory text (pp. 3-16) describing the approach of this book, most of which you can read in the Amazon preview. After that, it’s all charts and illustrations for pp. 19-137.</p><p><br /></p><p>2. The book is what it says it is: An attribution guide. If you do not have some fourth-century coins of Constantine and later emperors that you need attributing, this book will likely be of limited value to you. The value of this book lies in its actual utilization.</p><p><br /></p><p>3. Basically the book is for collectors who have fourth-century bronze coins whose mintmarks can no longer be read. The charts and and comic-book-like illustrations are designed to show you how you can determine the mint and (probable) ruler of an issue by factors other than mintmark: iconography and the arrangement of obverse and reverse legends. I wish I had this book during my early days of collecting in which I would sometimes buy “uncleaned” lots. It really would have saved me a lot of attribution time.</p><p><br /></p><p>If I were to describe this book’s current sweet spot or target market, it would be the person who buys significant lots of LRBs in mid to lower grades, or still has several such coins lying around. Even though I rarely buy such lots anymore, I still have a few mystery coins that I have never bothered to identify because it just took too much work. I’m looking forward to revisiting those coins with this book in hand.</p><p><br /></p><p>Out of respect for copyright and the hard work of author and translator, I will limit my images from the book to one object lesson. I’m trying to complete a mint set of the so-called “barbarian and hut” centenionalis for Constans. Years ago I bought a low-grade coin of this type that an eBay seller claimed was from Nicomedia. However, I have never been able to independently confirm that attribution because the mintmark was worn away. So I got out Bruck and am more confident that it is indeed from Nicomedia for two reasons:</p><p><br /></p><p>A. As the illustration shows, the position of the spear between the soldier’s legs works for Nicomedia, though it also works for a number of other mints.</p><p><br /></p><p>B. Next, I wanted to look at the tree type. And here’s where my generally positive assessment of Bruck takes a hit. In the tree types for the various mints, it appears that he has listed Thessalonica twice, in tree numbers three and eight from the left. Nicomedia is not in his list of tree types. My guess is that the eighth tree is supposed to be Nicomedia, and that “TES” is an error. Indeed, I think my coin tree resembles this tree type, arguing for my suspicion that this second TES should really be Nicomedia. So my confirmation of Nicomedia is, in essence, dependent upon my confirmation that this is an error in Bruck. (And actually, Bruck internally seems to confirm its own error; the spear placement cannot be between the soldier’s legs for Thessalonica, so the tree type doesn’t match the spear placement on the same coin, if that makes sense.)</p><p><br /></p><p>I would really like to hear the opinions of other members on whether they think this is a mistake in Bruck or not. If it is an error, then it really is a shame that this translation could not also be a revision of a book that is well over 50 years old. I can’t be the first person to have noticed the omission of the Nicomedia tree in half a century of this book’s use.</p><p><br /></p><p>However, I do not wish to be uncharitable. Perhaps it’s just my bad luck that my first experience with Bruck might ferret out a rare error. Also, I could be wrong, and I really would be delighted to be so, though I don’t understand why Nicomedia would be missing from his illustration of trees.</p><p><br /></p><p>What <i>is</i> in the book seems to be quite valuable, as the testimony of very many collectors on this board has already indicated. Those who specialize in campgates will especially benefit from his charts.</p><p><br /></p><p>One final comment. As Bruck himself noted in his introduction, the specimen counts from the various mints are quite dated and based only on the Vienna Kunsthistorisches Museum cabinet. As current collectors of LRB’s might note, coins from eastern mints are now much more widely represented on the market than they were in the 1960s. Indeed, Bruck’s specimen count has this type better represented from Alexandria than Thessalonica. I would say that today’s collector would find many more issues from Thessalonica on the market than from Alexandria. But perhaps my observation is anecdotal and of the moment, reflecting my own limited historical vision. Nonetheless, Bruck in 1961 said the specimen counts needed updating. Apparently it was a call that was not heeded, possibly because RIC specimen counts rendered such work redundant.</p><p><br /></p><p>Ultimately, even though I said this is not a book review, I’m glad I purchased Bruck, and I think I will find it very helpful. If I have indeed found an error among the FEL TEMP pages, I also sincerely hope it will be an exception that proves the rule.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]615009[/ATTACH][/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