Richard Schaefer's Roman Republican Die Project - Now Online!

Thanks so much for all your effort in trying to help. Perhaps Prof. Yarrow will be able to find out the answer.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I would also argue that Shaefer has effectively created a new work by virue of his analysis and arrangement. A bit like sampling in hip hop. Finally, this is not a commercial use - no one is making money publishing this material at great cost for free perusal. I also seriously doubt any of the original publishers would complain about the use; indeed, most would probably applaud it.

 

How does Schaefer handle repeat occurrences of a coin in different sales?

Ross G.

 

He marks up the other sales on same tiny piece of paper. However as his aim is to support die studies rather than provenances, he only marks repeat sales where they are significant - Ars Classica or famous named collectors for example - and in such cases only to pre-empt questions about whether it's the same coin. Also he usually records the oldest provenance. But he may ignore repeats if a coin has appeared in a host of modern sales.

 

For the record, another one I looked up that's also missing from the index (and, I presume, the binders): Crawford 378/1c, C. Marius C.f. Capito, Bust of Ceres/Ploughman with yoke of oxen. I guess I'm not surprised, because it's an issue with both control numbers and control symbols on the coins.

 

Professor Yarrow has been working on my list of 10 Crawford numbers that I discovered are missing from the index, and has a new blog post up addressing 4 of them so far (plus the 11th Crawford number that I already found in the binders even though it's missing from the index). She has informed me that there's more to come. Here's her post, with my own comments/notes in brackets:

https://livyarrow.org/2020/07/21/what-types-are-not-yet-online-for-rrdp/

What types are not (yet) online for RRDP?!

Posted on July 21, 2020 by Liv Yarrow

This is another working post attempting to respond to user queries and keep a record for myself that can eventually be integrated into an official finding aid on the ANS RRDP website. Want to know more about RRDP? Go to our most recent blog post!

(I thank DonnaML for first raising these questions. PLEASE email me at yarrow [at] brooklyn [dot] cuny [dot] edu if you cannot find an issue in Schaefer’s binders or the index and I will update this post.)

ODEC = One Die for Each Control-Mark

Status of release for issues not (yet) linked to CRRO

316– [Thorius Balbus, Juno Sospita/Bull charging] not indexing correctly, must troubleshoot and update data; for now this this issue can be found in Binder 2, on pages 50, 51, 54, 55, 58, 59, 64, 65, 68, 70, 71, 74, 76, 77, 80, 81, 84, 85, 88, 89, 92, 93, 96, 97 100, 101, 104, 105, 112, 113, 115; there are also seventeen (!) clippings images that have not yet been released, but those will contain no new dies. [I provided this list of page numbers, so any errors are my responsibility alone, not Prof. Yarrow's.]

378 [C. Marius c.f. Capito, Ceres/Ploughman with oxen] – part of ODEC, likely to be released by September 2020

394 [Postumius, Diana/Hound] – disambiguation of sub-types in underlying data is required before the online indexing will reflect location, for now this this issue can be found in Binder 6, on pages 104, 106, 107, 112, 113; there is also one clippings image that has not yet been released, but that will contain no new dies.

442 [M. Acilius Glabrio, Salus/Valetudo with snake] – disambiguation of sub-types in underlying data is required before the online indexing will reflect location, for now this this issue can be found in Binder 9, on pages 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 20; there are also four clippings images that have not yet been released, but those will contain no new dies.

453 [Plautius Plancus, Medusa/Victory with 4 horses] – disambiguation of sub-types in underlying data is required before the online indexing will reflect location, for now this this issue can be found in Binder 9, on pages 178, 179, 182, 184, 185, 190, 191; there are also three clippings images that have not yet been released, but those will contain no new dies.

[End of blog post]

[Coincidentally or otherwise, Crawford Nos. 394, 442, and 453 are the only three types, out of the 10 missing types I found, that do not have control numbers or other symbols on the coins. So perhaps it's not surprising that it turns out that they're in the binders after all, despite their absence from the index. I'll be curious to learn whether any of the missing types that do have control numbers or other symbols on them can be found in the binders despite being missing from the index, in addition to No. 316, which I already found.]

 

Good post Donna and Liv

 

Regarding Crawford 442 (Acilius Glabrio) and 453 (Plautius Plancus), the links for both in Prof. Yarrow's latest blog post (see above), which are supposed to take you to Binder 9, go instead to Binder 6. Hopefully that will be easy enough to fix; I've already written her about it.

While looking through the pages for both coins in Binder 9, I came across a couple of images with red backgrounds, but with different dealer names from the ROMAN/RONAN notations on the photos of my Sulpicius Galba coin, sold in 2001. (See discussion above in this thread.) Perhaps these images could be relevant in some way to determining the identity of the dealer who sold my coin? Or, more likely, they could be entirely different dealers and the use of red backgrounds is just a coincidence!





(Unfortunately, I think Mr. Schaefer uses way too many ligatures in his notations to make them easy to read. That's what happens when one spends so many years looking at Republican coins, I guess!)

Entirely separately, I believe I may have found a couple of double die-matches to my own example of the Plautius Plancus denarius (Crawford 453/1a, the subtype with snakes at the sides of Medusa's face) -- but, unfortunately, I once again can't decipher the notations that would identify the dealers of the two coins that I believe match mine.

First, here's my coin:


With a close-up of the obverse:



And here are the two coins that I think may be double die-matches, from Schaefer Binder 9, p. 185-0, apparently labeled as die XXVI:



Do people agree that these are die matches? Interestingly, although the first one clearly isn't the same coin as mine, there's a banker's mark to the left of Medusa's mouth on the obverse -- in exactly the same place as the multiple banker's marks on the obverse of my coin.

I've already written to Prof. Yarrow to ask her, but does anyone here have any idea who the dealers of these two coins might have been? I don't see anything in the preliminary finder's aid that might help identify them from the notations on the images.

Many thanks.

 

Yes die match to your obverse and the double lines indicates both the Schaefer coins die match each other.

There's no rush on identifying where they came from. No doubt there'll be a longer abbreviations list uploaded in time. N.Circ on the top Schaefer coin is Numismatic Circular (already in the abbreviations list)

 

@DonnaML This is conjecture on my part but I wonder if some of the coins in question with difficult to trace sources are actually eBay handles. I saw a couple others while searching for you that raised this possibility. The Plautius Plancus that you posted above looks like it came from "OWEN48" and the Acilius Glabrio from "AVGVSTVS." Of course I could be completely wrong. As Andrew states above we will undoubtedly learn more with time.

While the provenance information is a nice bonus, Richard Schaefer has done the hobby a huge service with this monumental effort (not to mention the ANS for digitizing and making it public). I highly encourage everyone to read Lucia Carbone and Liv Yarrow's ANS article on how this work will be used and some insights already possible as well as watch Zachary Taylor's ANS talk on his breakthroughs with computer-aided die studies. Together they bring the greater vision into focus.

 

Thank you both. (I didn't read across the top of the two images, or I would have put the N. CI together with the RC to get N. Circ.!) It could well be that some of the more mysterious notations refer to Ebay dealers. However, Professor Yarrow specifically requested that I let her know about any and all abbreviations not on the list, because she won't know about them unless people tell her. It doesn't sound like Richard Schaefer has kept a comprehensive list of his own. (Too bad that there's no comprehensive list of all ebay sellers over the last 20 years, at least as far as I know!)

I have read the ANS article. Fascinating.

 

I want to commend Donna for her excellent analysis of this resource that also noted its limitations and gaps, and in working with Liv Yarrow on it. I too suspect many of the names are eBay sellers that no longer exist, bearing in mind that 20 years ago some of these sellers may have been familiar names. So, quite some limitations for using this for anything excepting die studies also bearing in mind that once Richard Schaefer found one double die match he generally didnt add any more coins from that die pair no matter how illustrious the provenance.

 

I heard back today from Professor Yarrow. Unfortunately, Richard Schaefer doesn't recall the specific dealer who sold my coin in September 2001 -- he clearly keeps no comprehensive list -- but does remember that it was, in fact, an Ebay dealer, and thinks that the name was Ronan, not Roman. Equally unfortunately, there's no record on Ebay of sold coins or names of old dealers beyond a very brief period of time. Nor have I found the dealer by Googling "Ronan." However, at least I know that the coin has a provenance back at least to 2001, and wasn't minted last year!

 

I didn't see anything in https://www.coryssa.org/index.php/home/roman_republican but that database is very good for eBay dealers. Don't neglect it on your searches.

 

I don't quite follow you here - are you saying the Schaefer files include no more than two examples of a given die pair even if he found more?

Ross G.

 

Yes. His objective was die sequences and matching. Multiple double-die paired coins are of no great interest for that purpose and especially with very common types (many issues have over 500 obverse dies and are available in many thousands good illustrated examples), illustrating all available examples would have overwhelmed the databases for no great die-study advantage. Wasnt a hard and fast rule as given offstrikes he might illustrate multiples to make sure all elements of die could be seen including eg border dots. But he didn't keep adding otherwise identical double die paired l examples, except in cases of rarities where die wear progression might be studied. But not for common types. That does mean its inefficient for provenance searches

 

It's part of ODEC and should be released by end of September 2020 along with the rest of the clippings. Papius is a favorite of mine and is covered in my and Dr. Carbone's forthcoming RBN article based on the Schaefer material. I paste here my summary of RRDP on Papius from that article that's now in press:

***

Just as Crawford adopted Grueber’s numbering system for Papius’ control-marks and just extended it to incorporate additional symbols, so RRDP adopts and continues Crawford’s numbering.[1] RRDP identifies 20 symbol pairs unknown to Crawford.

212 – uncertain: perhaps a hoof pick and the leg of a horse; Nomos 5 (25 October 2011) 223 (6 specimens in RRDP).

213 – two broad brimmed hats, one with ties; photograph labelled “Mesagne” in RRDP (1 specimen in RRDP).

214 – silphium plant and two ears of grain with crossed stems; BM 2002,0102.3598 (4 specimens in RRDP).

215 – a tool associated with milling, probably for bolting the wheat, and a mill stone with harness to attach a horse or donkey; BM 2002,0102.3597 (4 specimens in RRDP).[2]

216 – crested helmet and Macedonian shield; Numismatic Circular May 1985 no. 2947 (2 specimens in RRDP).

217 – dates and fowl (likely a duck); photograph labelled “Rompuy” in RRDP, a specimen observed in trade (1 specimen in RRDP).[3]

218 – columnar stand on a base and a two-handled hydra-like vase; Numismatica Ars Classica 63 (17 May 2012) 189 (1 specimen in RRDP).

219 – goblet and kylix; Sylloge Nummorum Romanorum Milano 2549 (2 specimens in RRDP)

220 – anchor entwined with dolphin and hippocamp; photograph labelled “Griffiths Feb 10” in RRDP, a specimen observed in trade (1 specimen in RRDP)

221 – uncertain, perhaps a (priestly) cap with feathers and a patera with handle (?); photograph from a specimen observed for sale on eBay in March 2008 (1 specimen and one brockage in RRDP)

222 – Tall and short kantharos; BM 2002,0102.3593. (3 specimens in RRDP).

223 – bow and bow-case (gorytos), photograph from a specimen sold via electronic auction by Artemide Arte August 2017 as lot 212 (1 specimen in RRDP, as well as BnF REP-16341 which has not yet been added to the RRDP digital files).[4]

224 – two-pronged tool with open grip on handle and a wide-mouthed vessel with foot and rectangular handle for pouring (same object is depicted as the rev. symbol of Cr. 51), photograph labelled “Jun 2002 Berk” in RDPP, a specimen observed in trade (1 specimen in RRDP).

225 – scepter and wreath (cf. rev. of RRC 393) and uncertain object (ear or wing shaped?), Leu 75 (1 specimen in RRDP).

226 – sandal the comes over ankle and sandal with thick sole; identification of obverse symbol based on photograph labelled “Griffiths Oct 10 ex Berk” in RRDP, a specimen observed in trade (6 specimens in RRDP, as well as BnF REP-16205 which has not yet been added to the RRDP digital files).

[227] – the photographed coin with this number in RRDP is suspect; the reverse symbol is very similar to the mask of Cr. 69 but does not appear to be a direct die match; the obverse symbol appears to be the same symbol on Cr. 53 (the rock Saturn swallowed), but upside down. Perhaps the coin is an imitation.

228 – conical two handled basket (woven?) and rounded bucket with foot and slight narrowed mouth (metal?); BM 2002,0102.3596. (2 specimens in RRDP).

229 – uncertain, perhaps slipper and foot?; Münzen & Medaillen 37 (23 November 2012) 151 (2 specimens in RRDP, as well as BnF REP-16365 and REP-16141 which has not yet been added to the RRDP digital files).

230 – stick with flattened top, a guitar-shaped object; Lanz 125 (28 November 2005) 575 (1 specimen in RRDP).

231 – narrow necked, footed vessel with 90-degree angle handle (perhaps intended to represent glass?), rounded bottom dish with one short handle at lip; BM 2002,0102.3595 (6 specimens in RRDP, as well as BnF REP-16304 which has not yet been added to the RRDP digital files).

232 – uncertain symbols, curved horn or hook-like object and disk with meander pattern; BM 2002,0102.3594 (2 specimens in RRDP, as well as BnF REP-16354 which has not yet been added to the RRDP digital files).

The only control-mark pairs known to Crawford that in RRDP remain known from only one specimen are four types in the Turin collection.[5]

185 – gardening implements: a flat spade or shovel and a long handled fork; Fava 679.

186 – perhaps file and hand saw for finishing stone or wood; Fava 633.

188 – snake and toad (predator, prey); Fava 477.

207 – lock and key; Fava 45.[6]


[1] Crawford 1974, vol. 2, pp. 785-790 with plates 66-67.

[2] Cf. the iconography on the monument of P. Nonius Zethus from Ostia (CIL 14.393), esp. the object hanging in upper left corner of the right panel.

[3] Cf. the iconography in a still life mosaic of food for a banquet; from a villa at Tor Marancia; near the Catacombs of Domitilla; 2nd century CE; now on display in the Roman Gallery of the Candelabra at the Vatican, and also Alpicius’ recipes for fowl with dates, esp. 220-222. I thank Charles Parisot for this suggestion.

[4] I thank Myke Cole for the identification of the gorytos.

[5] The present RRDP digitization does not yet contain a second image of RRC 187 (Fava 614), but one is known: Classical Numismatic Group E-Auction 457 (12 April 2019) 233 and has been incorporated into our calculations here.

[6] This is one of three lock and key symbol pairs on the series and should not be confused with RRC 70 or 206.

 

Through the generosity of some fellow scholar-collectors, the abbreviations list has been vastly improved and will continue to be expanded. Do send queries to me via email. updated list: https://livyarrow.org/digital-resources/schaefer-guide/

 

Fascinating; thank you!

 

Hello all. Just returning to say that Clippings (= Binder overflow and ODEC) are now online.