Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Roman Collector, post: 2712670, member: 75937&quot;]It gets really tricky and how to classify a coin depends on the purpose of the collection. For a &quot;one of each emperor&quot; collector, than any additional examples of an emperor are duplicates.</p><p><br /></p><p>I tend to separate things, rather than lump them together. The following characteristics would make for different types:</p><p><br /></p><p>Obverse legend</p><p>Bust left facing versus right facing</p><p>Headgear on bust: diadem vs. bare-headed; radiate vs. laureate, etc</p><p>Reverse legend</p><p>Direction of any figures on the reverse (lion walking left would be different than walking right, for example)</p><p>Different mints always warrant different types</p><p><br /></p><p>Things I generally consider variants:</p><p><br /></p><p>Hairstyles on bust</p><p>Minor variations in objects held by figures on the reverse (Venus holding apple vs. Venus with empty hand but otherwise identical)</p><p>Unintentional variation in legends (misspellings)</p><p>Officina marks</p><p><br /></p><p>Things that could go either way:</p><p><br /></p><p>Placement of a star in left field vs. right field</p><p>Presence or absence of an object at the foot of a reverse figure (presence or absence of an altar; presence or absence of a cupid; presence or absence of a peacock, etc)</p><p><br /></p><p>What does one do in a case like these two coins of Herrenia Etruscilla?</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]612942[/ATTACH] </p><p>[ATTACH=full]612943[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>The coins are pretty much identical except for hairstyle. Same obverse legend, same reverse legend. Both feature Pudicitia seated left, drawing veil and holding scepter. </p><p><br /></p><p>Do you consider them the same type or different? </p><p><br /></p><p>RIC considers both of them the same type and assigns the same number to them (59b). RIC notes there is a coin with all of these attributes but from the Antioch mint, distinguishable only by style (RIC 65a) or by the presence of a mintmark, IV, below the bust (RIC 65b).</p><p><br /></p><p>Sear, on the other hand, considers these coins to be different types, assigning the one with the straight hairstyle&nbsp; with the long plait in the back no. 9495 and the one with the wavy hairstyle no. 9496.</p><p><br /></p><p>RIC and Sear differ in their interpretation of the hairstyles, too. Sear attributes the wavy hairdo to Antioch, whereas RIC says it could be from Rome or Antioch, depending on the style. Moreover, RIC feels the wavy hairdo is the earlier, whereas Sear considers it to be the later of the two styles. </p><p><br /></p><p>Personally, I tend to favor RIC&#039;s interpretation of things and consider them to be variants of the same type--both from the Rome mint, but probably representing different time periods of production. Would I sell one because it&#039;s a duplicate? No.[/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