Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;scarborough, post: 4669677, member: 93146&quot;]In my collection database I’ve replaced ‘rarity’ with ‘frequency.’</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Wherever possible I use the number of estimated dies instead of the traditional rarity rating that we’ve been discussing. For example</p><p><br /></p><ul> <li>Agathocles quadriga tetradrachm: obv 16, rev 55</li> <li>Macedon first district “club” tetradrachm: obv 166 rev 601</li> <li>Aesillas tetradrachm: obv 102 rev 372</li> </ul><p><br /></p><p>Thanks to Crawford’s work, the approximate number of dies for the Roman Republican series is available.</p><p><br /></p><p>Of course there are coins for which perhaps disproportionately few dies have survived, and which skews this system</p><p><br /></p><ul> <li>Koson staters: thousands in the market from perhaps five dies <br /> </li> <li>Leontini ‘wet head’ tetradrachm: ‘hundreds’ in the market from one set of dies&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </li> <li>Helios / Rose Hermias drachm: also hundreds in the market from one pair of dies</li> </ul><p><br /></p><p>… I’m sure we all know of other cases, such as the Lentulus Spinther tripod denarius that had the second highest rarity rating in Sydenham’s work, but now is regularly offered in EF condition.</p><p><br /></p><p>My ‘frequency’ category works for me for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it gives me motivation to check the detailed reference works and do a bit of research on each issue.&nbsp; And secondly, it provides me with a comparison within and among series.</p><p><br /></p><p>D[/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