Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 2605257, member: 19463&quot;]I&#039;m sorry this thread flopped so hard with the CT posters who specialize in Republicans.&nbsp; I find it hard to believe so few have an opinion on the books.</p><p><br /></p><p>I have been reorganizing my numbering system for coins in my collection making more categories and freeing up numbers where needed.&nbsp; My old system broke the files into folders RA for Republican, RE for Imperial before 193, RS for 193-217 (I have a lot of them) and RX for coins starting with Macrinus.&nbsp; Since I started that system, I have added a lot more RX coins than fits so I was separating them into 12 codes.&nbsp; I am thinking I should do the same for Republicans but it is harder to break them into neat little Groups.&nbsp; Harlan makes a case for a separation at 81 and 49 but I still am having trouble with some details of the decision.&nbsp; Imperatorial seems like a neat group but what does one do with coins like the Mussidius below that are later than many Imperatorials but really seem like old fashioned Republicans.&nbsp; I&#039;m now considering a pre-Sulla group, later Republicans group and the obvious Imperatorials.&nbsp;&nbsp; There is also the question on whether it is sensible to have a separate group for Aes since so many I have are harder to associate with a person or date with any certainty.&nbsp; I&#039;m trying to develop a catalog that will make ense to me for the duration without having to redo it periodically.&nbsp; I&#039;m starting with the late Roman separations and we will see how that goes before committing.&nbsp; I do see a natural break with Sulla which Harlan pointed out well but that might be because I do not know enough about the whole subject to see the problems with it.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]569377[/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