As a dealer of many years I have always tried to properly reference all of my offerings but only to those publications which are actually relevant. But many of the 'big' dealers seem to continually use references which are in some instances nearly 100 years out of date. Why would anyone reference to Cohen or BMC for example? I get part of it, some publications were updated with newer things over others and there is a very tiny overlap, but why on earth reference to a publication few even have, never will have, nor will have the ability to check it for themselves? I've been seeing some big dealers now referencing to student publications and studies which nobody but them has even heard of. What is the purpose of this? Does it add value for the collector? If so, why? Is it simply a feather in the cap for a big dealer to show everyone that they have a library nobody else has nor will ever have (nor will ever read for that matter)? Just a random thought this evening.
Frankly, I've wondered the same thing for quite a while now. I suppose it gives all of us some feeling of comfort that it appears to be referenced in even obscure, obsolete or unobtainable sources that few of us will ever have at our disposal.
I use reference works in my catalog, but to be honest, I have to trust the seller or on-line identifications. Many of the references I use, as you point out, I do not own nor do I plan to acquire.
I mostly agree except for the BMC part. Since the old BMC catalogs are public domain and available as free downloads, I like to look up whatever BMC references are listed with a coin. My bigger complaint is all the downright incorrect attributions. If you can't directly verify an attribution, or ask a friend that has a particular volume to help you, leave it out altogether. I don't need to know a coin is Squinkdoodle 69 to buy it.
Very true. One of the big faults with the internet (as it pertains to ancient coins anyway) is that people simply cut and paste. They simply search, see, and copy. Never mind the original reference was wrong, it simply get perpetuated ad nauseum. So many of the dealers many see as being very knowledgeable actually dont have any books. So sad
References don't add any value for me. I care about style, who the ruler is, interesting & exotic reverses. I don't even own a single reference book - am I bad? Btw I note that some dealers are now attributing Ptolemy IV bronze issues (from Paphos, Cyprus) to Cleopatra VII, based on an obscure publication that has been comprehensively debunked.
since i don't actually collect anything...but i do collect everything, i don't own any of the catalogs that aren't freely available. i don't hunt for anything based on catalog number, but i do try and figure out what it is by looking at multiple online sources. if i can find a coin with the same reference a couple or more times with no "dissenting opinions" i just put that down. if there are discrepancy, i keep looking and ask here. i suspect a full attribution may add value to the coin, and i think there is a pretty good chance that whoever inherits my coins isn't going to want to do the work on that. i also enjoying doing it, so ....win/win. as far as obscure references,if i see a name i recognize, like sear or moushmov or similar i go with it. if the only think i can find is squinkdoodle 69...i'll put it with a question mark on the flip.
I like Cohen. Cohen was a catalog of what was available arranged by reverse legend. It did not pretend to arrange things in order by date or mint. It was just a check list and is as pertinent oday as it was when written except we need to add newly found varieties. I do consider it a fault that Cohen ignored mintmarks so we don't learn the arrangements but we can identify the types even when there are problems with legibility. I find RIC more offensive with incorrect arrangements in places than Cohen who simply did not go there.
I actually prefer dealers list as many references as possible because I own and refer to most of those references. With the Roman Republic, for instance, Crawford is the standard reference however Crawford doesn't always have historic information and things like that. For those you need Sydenham, BMC, RSC, etc. Crawford generally lists at least one other reference(Usually BMC) but it's nice to have the dealer list any they know as well because the first thing I'm going to do when considering buying a coin is check the various references for information, look at the plate coins and go from there. When speaking with other collectors who focus on this series, the bronze especially, the references numbers are the best way to refer to specific coins. That said, dealers quite frequently get Republican bronzes and the early Republican silver wrong, and that is pretty annoying when you're searching for examples of a specific series. I'd much rather dealers not list references that they haven't actually verified.
What bothers me is the use of an outdated reference when a new edition has been published. The most current edition should be cited. However, if an outdated reference is used in an attribution it should be noted as such. I run across this issue all the time collecting Flavian imperials, old RIC II versus new RIC II. I almost never pay attention to a dealer's attribution of a coin (most of the time it is wrong or outdated) and research it myself. Domitian denarii are particularly ill served by most dealers.
I agree, I wasn't too happy that the attribution of my Trajan denarius was incorrect, despite coming from a big dealer on vcoins.com. Thankfully I checked RIC and was able to get the right one. Had it been an obscure source, I would have been out of luck.
I certainly hope the practice of carelessly copy-pasting into vcoins descriptions from other online references isn't too widespread. Especially important details like if the coin on offer is a die match to one in the book.
I think it is very common, even with the largest dealers. This offers nice opportunities to cherry pick some rare varieties that might be overlooked by an incorrect citation, so I embrace the practice!
The practice is most common with the 'new' dealers. They have come to ancient coins at a time when they feel all information should be free, so they dont buy books (and most collectors dont have them now either, other than a few). So, errors are passed on. But I also agree that it creates an opportunity for those of us who know a bit more to get some bargains.
I have expressed before my minority opinion that IF you are the kind of person who wants an RIC number you should buy RIC. I do not like the practice of deriving numbers from sources you do not have. That included snagging numbers from auction listings and Dane's online spreadsheets. Without looking up the coin in the book itself, you run the risk of missing some distinction between two numbers based on some detail you did not know was important. I am not suggesting everyone should buy a thousand dollar set of books but I am suggesting that a proper ID of a coin doe not require a catalog reference that may or may not be correct. I get a lot of good out of the RIC, BMC and other standard references in my library but having a number from those books means a lot less to me than understanding the significance of the various details listed or explained in those works. When you consider the differences between various RIC volumes in how they assigned numbers, it is hard to take the matter seriously. RIC V is probably the worst with some numbers allowing a dozen variations but its problems can not be completely written off as just "out of date". I do record numbers in some of my cataloging but I regret the number of people who seem to worship them.
I heartily agree with Doug. If you're using RIC to merely lift catalog numbers, you're completely wasting its analytic value.
