I have been trying to attribute the Roman Imperial coins I have using the David Sear books. Sometimes I can the variety exactly, but other times I can only find something that is similar. Somehow it seems impossible to me that the number of varieties can be limited to the pieces that are listed in the book. Given number of years that some emperors ruled and the hand work which had to go into the production of the dies, it seems obvious that there has to be more die varieties. Here are a couple of examples. This denarius of Vespasian is similar to S-2285, yet it’s not quite the same. There is an extra “T” to the right of the head of Pax. This denarius of Titus is similar to S-2513, but it’s unusual. First it appears that the wording on the obverse is backwards. It this correct? Is it unusual? Second, the wording on the reverse is the same as that for the S-2513 that I found on the “Wildwinds” site, but the table or throne is different. Counterfeits are a concern with ancients, and it leaves me wondering when I can’t find a variety in the book. Still it seems logical, for reasons I covered before, that the book can’t cover everything. Am I off base here?
Do you mean right? I don't think it's an extra T, rather the legend break is probably different and the one T appears on the right versus the left? This T nearly always goes with the following R, as in TR, standing for Tribunicia (Tribunal), followed P or POT standing for Postestate (Power). http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.2_1(2).ves.29
It's important to remember that all of the dies were hand engraved and variations in the spacing of letters on the inscription are very common. They are not considered separate catalog numbers in Sear or RIC and, while interesting and can be helpful when doing die-studies, they do not affect the coin's value or price. Around here, we call paying attention to such variations in designs between designs "fly-specking" and some collectors (such as I) enjoy it; others do not. Your coins appear in many references. The first is RIC2.1 29, BMCRE 26, CBN 18, Cohen 94, Sear 2285. An example in the British Museum has slightly different spacing than yours in the reverse legend as well as a different style of throne on which Pax is sitting. These types of differences arise because the dies were cut by different engravers. Whether this is significant enough to call it a separate variety is hard to say; it's not considered significant enough to warrant a separate listing in RIC, Sear, Cohen or CBN: Your second coin is Sear 2514, not 2513. Other references are RIC2.1 122, BMCRE 85, CBN 47, Cohen 313. Its obverse legend is supposed to read counterclockwise. Here's an example in the British Museum:
Yes, I should have typed in "right" for the location of the "T." I have fixed it. Thank you for the correction, and the confirmation that we are really looking at "types" to put an American term on it, not varieties. How often do the words read counter clockwise, and why was that done?
Exactly! It varies from reign to reign. Fairly commonly on early 1st century imperials and in the Flavian period. Almost unheard of after Domitian. I have no idea the reason.
@johnmilton -- you might be interested in this thread I started about how nebulous the notion of variety may be and whether or not a variation warrants a separate catalog number.
When the first catalogs were composed about more than one collection in the mid 18 hundreds, only types were documented. Advancing into the twentieth century, the elder scientists clung to the 'types' idea, but later catalogs showed more variants like in the Constantinian coinage. Personally I am a fan of 'the more detailed, the better' sort of cataloging, but that depends on your goal in collecting. One of my collections is copper coins from the mint of Arles in France from its beginning in 313 AD until the reign as Augustus of his son Constantius in 337, which seems a very short period. Modern scholars like Philippe Ferrando distinguish over a thousand copper coins with their variants! Frans
The Sear books are fantastic, or at least the second volume of Roman Coins and their Values which I have right here is, but they are not comprehensive. I use the book to find the coin, or at least a coin with the key details, and then I use Wildwinds and other sites to find the listed coin and then look above and below it. Commonly you will find your exact coin legend or variety quickly that way. I will most likely have to invest in the relevant RIC volumes if I want to have a more comprehensive catalogue.
You might be able to get by with OCRE: http://numismatics.org/ocre/ "OCRE is built on the numbering system created by the Roman Imperial Coinage series." That's what I use.
OCRE is good, but be aware that it contains errors. I have found the wrong coins listed, errors in reading the legends, and other problems with misattributions. I use the site too but it is no substitute for a critical eye. It is always good to check with more than one source.
I do think it is fair to say that, given the number of mints and engravers and the number of different coins minted, that Sear is an excellent but not comprehensive resource, and that virtually no resource can be comprehensive. As just one example, I enjoy Alexandrian coins, and I frequently find coins that Sear lists but not for the regnal year indicated on the coin. I agree with the preceding comments that knowing a variety of sources, checking and cross-checking them, and applying your own knowledge and observations is a good recipe for success.
What do you expect from a small book listing the Greatest Hits of coins? If there were a comprehensive listing of all ancient coins, the book would weigh a ton. Coin Talk is honored to number among its contributors Raisel Suarez who published a huge book ERIC II which made an attempt to get most of the coins but illustrated few and missed some of my absolute favorite Roman Imperial coins. Sear made a big mistake listing any Alexandria Provincials opening himself up to criticism for not including them all. There is a more comprehensive listing available (Emmett) which could be turned into a great work with the addition of a few thousand photos aloowing it to be a great resource for those who want to spend over $1000 on a book. Sear, Suarez, Emmett and a hundred other books are great resources for what they are and what they cost. None is the be all end all reference for ancient coins. Not even Coin Talk is that (but we are trying).
Thanks to you all! You have been a lot of help to a beginning collector. I know I have been collecting coins for 60 years, but in this area, I am a newbie.
