Hi everyone, I've lurked on this site for a while and really enjoy reading the topics and seeing pictures of the great coins everyone has. I have some potin tetradrachms I am trying to ID - once I ID some I will post some pictures. I have Milne and have a question about how to assign ID numbers - unfortunately I think you need the book in hand to answer this question. Taking Diocletian as an example, coins 4946 to 4966 all appear to be the same type with some variations in weight and size - is there some distinction I am missing or did Milne list all these coins simply because he had that many of that type in his collection? If these are all the same type is there some protocol in picking which Milne number you would use to ID your coin? Maybe the one closest in weight and size (which will be somewhat arbitrary given that diameters and weights don't always move in lockstep). Thanks for your help!
Hi, TT, and welcome. Until someone more knowledgable than me (which is pretty much everyone) comes along, let me have a go. I don't have a copy of Milne, and I cannot see the coins that you refer to, but from my experience there is ALWAYS a difference in twenty coins in your hand or on a page. It may be as simple as the mintmark, or the fact that the eagle on one has a wreath in its mouth whereas on another it has a twig (branch) in its mouth. It may be the letter in the right field or the absence of it. It may be the legend ending in AVGG rather than AVG. The differences will be there. Having said that, I do have two coins in my collection that have identical 'mates' but that happens so infrequently as to be 'discounted'. Good Luck.
A timely post and questions as I have been attributing Alexandrian tetradrachms all day! You are correct, Milne was just listing the same type, but numerous examples with slight weight and diameter differences. When I encounter this I list the reference as Milne4946-66. Some will try to use a specific weight or diameter as the specific number, but I tend to ignore duplicate entries. This is common in reference books where a collection has many examples of the same coin but the entire collection is cataloged. Milne has always been my favorite reference for the series, though I may be in the minority. I dont always agree with some of the obverse inscription differences as with these coins the breaks between letters are not often noticeable (if at all). I have also become a fan of the simplified format of Alexandrian Coins by Keith Emmett. Its a great companion reference to Milne (though I wish it had more photos, which Milne also lacks in number). You can still get a new shrink wrapped copy of it from the publisher, Wayne Sayles: https://www.vcoins.com/en/stores/wa...product/alexandrian_coins/652943/Default.aspx
I don't own Emmett, but I use reference ID numbers from it when it is listed in the sale. Most often it is like Ken said where a group of numbers will be referenced . BTW, welcome here.
Welcome @TTerrier !!! It seems Ken has provided the answer(s) you seek and at the same time clarified some aspects of them for me as well... I'm looking forward to seeing your posts!!!
The key here is recognizing that Milne was not trying to create a catalog of all known Alexandrian varieties, but was rather simply cataloging all of the specimens in a collection. That explains why such minor details as qualify as a new entry. When using a catalog like this, I try to be as specific as accurate as possible in citing it. If the type has the same legend break and *roughly* the same diameter and weight, I cite it exactly. If not, "Milne 2993 var. (legend break). When there are multiple examples of the same variety, one should cite "Milne 2993-7," to indicate to the reader that there are multiple examples. This is not appropriate to do in a type catalog when the details are insufficient to properly identify the variety. So, "RIC IX 38-42" is inaccurate and should probably read "Cf. RIC IX 38-42 (for type)."
Thanks everyone that is great information - I jumped the gun and ordered Emmett before I saw Ken's reply above. I really like these Alexandrian coins - they have a great look to them (they look ancient!) and an interesting historical background.
I have a few Alexandrian reference books and Emmett's is my favorite, in terms of basic identification and attribution. To be fair though I haven't had the others as long and so haven't thoroughly explored them.
I also like Emmett but echo the faults of lacking photos. As a photo hobbyist, I have that criticism of most books and believe most sincerely that this will be the downfall of books as we have known them since the invention of the printing press. Today, there is an answer. Photos in books are expensive. Online photos supporting the book are not. For a similar low price, a book can have a CD in a pocket at the back with proper images of every coin they could possibly include. When we did the book on Late Roman Bronzes by Victor Failmezger, I insisted (doing free photos gets you some rights) we offer the book with a CD of the plates. The disk was 275 MB (lots of space left on a CD, more on a DVD) and plates were clickable to bring up enlargements of 700+ coins (what we had). Some better coins were in two sizes but the smaller ones were large enough to fill most 2002 vintage monitors and retained correct relative sizes so small coins had a lot of space around them. Sample small: sample large: The idea went over like a lead balloon. People did not care. Many dealers did not bother to distribute the disks and few people requested them (see pages xi-xii) so no more were made after the first run. Many collectors in 2002 did not have a computer that would run a disk. Today it is different. We have the French attempt to redo RIC V part 1 online with multiple examples of every coin where possible. http://www.ric.mom.fr/en/search/advanced We have thousands of online Roman Republican coins from the British Museum and other sources. We could have a book like Emmett with a disk or a site with photos but it would require someone who cares when they write a book as much as our friends in France and London do. A lot has happened between 2002 and 2016. I hope we will continue to value illustrating books beyond what is economically feasible on paper. The images exist (ask acsearch, Wildwinds, CNG etc.). People who write books tend to have photo files. It will happen when people who buy books demand it.
The problem with disks of any kind is that they are already out of date. For three years now I have not had a CD drive on my computer (few are made with them now). Its old technology and we wont see them much longer.
I bought my first laptop in 2008 with no CD/DVD drive. I rarely used them before that and every computer I have have had since hasn't had one. I sure do use SD cards though. I also haven't bought a music CD since 2009 or so. All my new music is digital and my classic stuff from growing up is Vinyl. Nothing beats Vinyl.
True, most people will neglect to keep up transferring files from one format to another. Today we have USB drives but they are lumpier than would fit in a book. Flat disks were good for that. Most of us that have things on disk have transferred the files to our hard drives (old fashion) or sent them into the Clouds. I suppose the current answer would be a website with files but those will not go with the book to the used book store. Oh, I forgot, there will be no used book stores and used CD stores because you all have Kindles and MP3's. I'll miss them. 100 years from now, will there will be no music from today but we will have 1916 player piano rolls?
They may not be economical to use with a mass market print run, but micro SD cards are just 1mm thick. However, I'd agree that a website or cloud would be the way to go with what inevitably will just be e-books anyway. You can download piano roll music from the early 1900s in mp3 format quite easily. I've no doubt there'll be some antiquarians in 2120 downloading Katy Perry and Justin Bieber music to whatever storage format is current then .
me too => hey, but be like my wife and start collecting 'em now!! (mmm, antique books are nearly as cool as old coins!!) SIDENOTE => although he is Canadian, I have not yet started hoarding Justin Bieber vinyl
Pretend as you wish but the current trend to electronic everything will make what we now call archaeology lacking in artifacts to dig up in the future. I would like to be the fly on the wall in a few hundred years when they try to decipher the only surviving vinyl of some tune which one of us made into an ashtray in high school shop. Of course they may not recognize it as an ashtray by then but candy dishes may be just as politically incorrect by then. I have friends who read books on e-readers that were published e-only. I like online color photos by the thousands over books with same size black and whites of plaster casts. My wife is a retired librarian who resided over the sale of her branch's card catalogs when those went digital. Now half the books she reads are electronic borrowed from the library. I remember loving to go to brick and mortar bookstores to see what was on the remainder tables. Back then, selections included good books that had not sold all the copies printed. I bought all the Greek Coins by Anthony they had and gave/sold them to others who wanted the book. Today those tables are filled with 'made to be remaindered' titles and 'print on demand' technology has really cut back on the stacks of cheap books worth owning. Technology has changed everything in life to some degree but some of the changes carry both good and bad features.
Books wont disappear in our lifetimes, but they will only get more expensive. At least for the better quality ones. Print on demand is getting easier and cheaper. One can have a book printed and bound at Kinkos pretty cheaply. I dont know how it will all pan out, but I am glad I have the references I do! And of course will continue to buy those I find useful.
