Ancient Varieties: Systematic differences or Jed Clampett's truck?

[Ten-Speed]

I am trying to learn about the varieties of ancient coins, and in particular if the manner in which they are classified follows the manner in which other series of coins (we will use Canadian tokens for the comparison) are so classified.

Numismatic scholar par excellence Christopher Faulkner has written the throughly researched and beautifully constructed book Imperial Designs: Canada's Ships, Colonies, and Commerce Tokens, 2019, London: Spink and Sons, Ltd.  These tokens have a device of a ship on the high seas on the obverse and an inscription (is this the right word?) on the reverse There are 47 varieties of these tokens and there are some general rules by which the numismatist may use to classify the variety in an organized and not so torturous manner. Here are two of the coins. varieties 997 10-29 and 997 10-31. This classification scheme was first used by Lees.

Ships, Colonies, & Commerce tokens 997 10-29

 

Here is variety 997 10-31

(Please forgive photo quality..can anyone send me to previous posting that would suggest a photo set-up or maybe even a pm about how to put together a reasonable set-up for around $200-250 dollars, if this is at all possible?)

There is a basic 4-step algorithm for identifying these varieties:

1. First, establish where the little "H';  I assume this means Heaton mint

2. See which kind of ampersand your token has; the are 4 kinds

3. There's 3 kinds of ships--those with a  U.S. Flag, a British Flag, and the "drooping flag."

4. British flag with single or double curve.

Version 10-29 above has cut-know; first E of commerce nicked at top

Version 10-31 above, Cut-nob &; missing inside serif of left foot of N in COLONIES

Now, I am ignorant about varieties of ancient coins and wouldn't know how to go about anything related to them. For me, sometimes, it's helpful to think in metaphors. What came to mind was--Jed Clampett's truck, the complex combination of a vehicle falling apart, and jam-packed  with precious possessions (to Jed). Are varieties of ancient coins extremely different from each other--not so categorizable as we've seen with the Breton tokens--and perhaps similar to the arrangement of Jed Clampett's truck on different days? Any guidance you can give me on this question, and perhaps a few "two coin" sets involving ancient coin varieties, I greatly appreciate.

For those unfamiliar with Jed Clampett, here is is with his truck.

 

 

 

Edited June 18 by Ten-Speed

[AETHER]

Neat. With ancient its usually mint marks and monograms.  I suppose you can include a die variety of the same type, like  different style.  

[ominus1]

..i'm ridin' with Jed & Co....:D

[Ten-Speed]

Thanks, @aether. This makes the process sound less imposing. It seems a big deal is made concerning the mint marks of Morgan dollars as well as other U.S. coins. Perhaps I will be able to find two ancient coins with different mint marks. Where does the description of the mint mark go in the description of the ancient coins? I assume there must be hundreds of ancient mints, is there a list of these? Thank you.

Edited June 18 by Ten-Speed

[shanxi]

It is important to distinguish between variations that have a deeper meaning. Mintmarks are certainly an obvious example. But there are, for example, Severan denarii that can only be assigned to a mint by their style. Then small details suddenly become important. Or the hairstyles of Faustina II, which @Roman Collector  has written about and which allow an exact dating of the types. These are all important variants.

Then there are variants that are just coincidences, or simply the style of the die cutter. In this case there is no deeper meaning, or we don't know it (yet), but they can also be interessting.

 

[Ten-Speed]

Thanks, @Shanxi. Now I have some homework to do on several denarii.. I have two Faustina coins so I can also learn more about the hair varieties. Just as an aside, hair style is relevant to Large cent varieties.

[Phil Anthos]

Rock & Roll too.  😎

[AETHER]

1 hour ago, Ten-Speed said:

Thanks, @aether. This makes the process sound less imposing. It seems a big deal is made concerning the mint marks of Morgan dollars as well as other U.S. coins. Perhaps I will be able to find two ancient coins with different mint marks. Where does the description of the mint mark go in the description of the ancient coins? I assume there must be hundreds of ancient mints, is there a list of these? Thank you.

I suppose it depends on what area of collecting, I don't have many references in this regard, but as an example, I use https://numismatics.org/pella/results  for my Alexander III related coinage and generaly Argead dynasty. 

They have different variations and types and mints and monograms etc. 

[Heliodromus]

One major difference between ancients and modern coins is that the dies for ancients were hand cut, and even for the same issue / date, and same mint, may vary considerably, so die differences (e.g. minor differences in execution of the design) would not normally be used for attribution.

Factors used for ancients attribution (which may vary a bit depending on specifics) generally include:

• ruler appearing on coin, or issuing authority
• mint
• issue (which implies date), often indicated by some issue marks
• reverse type - design and legend
• bust type and obverse legend

Comparing to your example ship token, the only thing there that would be of relevance would probably be the mint ("H"), and the rest would just be die details unless stylistic differences were being used to identify the issue/date.

 

Edited June 18 by Heliodromus

[akeady]

FWIW, Buddy Ebsen (AKA Jed Clampett) was a coin collector, including collecting ancient coins.

As a first pass, coins are sorted into issuing culture - Greek, Roman, Other.   Then there are many further divisions, based on geography and timescale and other factors.

E.g., for Roman, the field can be divided into Republican, Imperial and Provincial, then the Imperials can be divided up as to reign, or denomination, mint.

When you get as far as a coin of the same emperor, denomination, mint, you can look at the type of reverse and indeed the bust on the obverse (assuming there is a bust of the ruler on the obverse).   Some references distinguish between legend breaks, others don't.

ATB,
Aidan.

[ominus1]

1 hour ago, akeady said:

FWIW, Buddy EbseKA Jed n (AClampett) was a coin collector, including collecting ancient coins.

As a first pass, coins are sorted into issuing culture - Greek, Roman, Other.   Then there are many further divisions, based on geography and timescale and other factors.

E.g., for Roman, the field can be divided into Republican, Imperial and Provincial, then the Imperials can be divided up as to reign, or denomination, mint.

When you get as far as a coin of the same emperor, denomination, mint, you can look at the type of reverse and indeed the bust on the obverse (assuming there is a bust of the ruler on the obverse).   Some references distinguish between legend breaks, others don't.

ATB,
Aidan.

...ole Jed    .ahaha!.,  i 4got about that  yup he was indeed1  good catch there!...:)....did you know about that @Ten-Speed??  🙂

Edited June 18 by ominus1

[Ten-Speed]

Aidan, this is exactly what I was looking for. It offers a comprehensive framework to narrow down the varieties--with 50,000 different types it seems so intimidating, at least to someone just starting to figure things out. I have the 1978 Sear reference and I suspect that would be of help. This is great--I've only been on the forum two weeks.

[Ten-Speed]

3 hours ago, ominus1 said:

...ole Jed    .ahaha!.,  i 4got about that  yup he was indeed1  good catch there!...:)....did you know about that @Ten-Speed??  🙂

Ominous, be careful don't drop 'em in the SEE-ment pond. When ya' do that, granny gets mighty perturbed as they get stuck in that drain. There's some awful green moss down there that sticks to the coins an' it don't come out. Jed

[John Conduitt]

There isn't a standard way of doing it.

Probus RIC 79 has all these descriptions for the bust but all are apparently the same coin:

Bust of Probus, radiate, draped, right or
bust of Probus, radiate, draped, cuirassed, right or
bust of Probus, radiate, cuirassed, right or
bust of Probus, radiate, helmeted, cuirassed, left, holding spear in right hand and shield in left hand or
bust of Probus, radiate, left, wearing imperial mantle, holding globe or
bust of Probus, radiate, cuirassed, left, holding spear in right hand and shield in left hand.

On the other hand, Constantius I RIC London 16 and RIC London 22 are apparently different coins, even though they have same dates and are identical in every way except one has a larger head than the other:

RIC 16:
Bust of Constantius Chlorus, laureate, cuirassed, right. With small head on tall neck
CONSTANTIVS NOB C
Genius, wearing modius, nude, chlamys draped over left shoulder, standing left, holding patera in right hand and cornucopiae in left hand
GENIO POPV-LI ROMANI

RIC 22:
Bust of Constantius Chlorus, laureate, cuirassed, right. With larger, elongated head on shorter neck
CONSTANTIVS NOB C
Genius, wearing modius, nude, chlamys draped over left shoulder, standing left, holding patera in right hand and cornucopiae in left hand
GENIO POPV-LI ROMANI

Even then, if you look at the many examples given on Ocre, it's hard to tell the difference.

Edited June 18 by John Conduitt

[Ten-Speed]

Wow--lots of homework to do here. Now I understand why the RIC is so important. My mini-Sear just doesn't go into that level of detail. I'm not sure I have the patience to do this "all the time," but perhaps by focusing on a few coins I could get the hang of it. (I'm not too shabby with Early American Coins.) And if I recall there seem to be a lot of Probus coins available and if my memory serves me right they don't break the bank. On the Constantius, do they note the larger head in the description? Apparently the coins come from different obverse dies.

By the way, do we call the different varieties different types?

Thanks for making this a bit easier to understand as well as giving me examples that I can look up. Perhaps also I could check the HB or RB archives, probably lots of these coins there.

Thanks for this valuable and detailed info, @John ConduittJohn

Edited June 19 by Ten-Speed

[Broucheion]

Hi All,

FWIW: Buddy Ebsen's coin collection was sold in May-June of 1987 via the Superior Pre-Long Beach Sale. Those were US coins.

I Picked up (from another blogpost) the following description: "Superior Galleries "The Buddy Ebsen Collection" May 31, June 1-2, 1987. The sale included 3211 lots that realized a total of $7,669,691.81 (including the 10% buyers fee). The top grossing coin was an 1879 Coiled Hair Stella (lot 2444) which realized $165,000. He had an amazing collection of Gold and Type, both. Most of his silver type coins came with great original toning."

The catalog and PRL is freely available at  https://archive.org/details/buddyebsencollec1987supe/mode/2up

- Broucheion

Edited June 18 by Broucheion

[Phil Anthos]

2 minutes ago, Broucheion said:

Hi All,

FWIW: Buddy Ebsen's coin collection was sold in May-June of 1987 via the Superior Pre-Long Beach Sale. Those were US coins.

I Picked up (from another blogpost) the following description: "Superior Galleries "The Buddy Ebsen Collection" May 31, June 1-2, 1987. The sale included 3211 lots that realized a total of $7,669,691.81 (including the 10% buyers fee). The top grossing coin was an 1879 Coiled Hair Stella (lot 2444) which realized $165,000. He had an amazing collection of Gold and Type, both. Most of his silver type coins came with great original toning."

The catalog and PRL is freely available at  https://archive.org/details/buddyebsencollec1987supe

- Broucheion

I think I may have that Superior catalog. Damn, now I have to go into the dreaded backroom.  😳

[Ten-Speed]

7 hours ago, Heliodromus said:

One major difference between ancients and modern coins is that the dies for ancients were hand cut, and even for the same issue / date, and same mint, may vary considerably, so die differences (e.g. minor differences in execution of the design) would not normally be used for attribution.

Factors used for ancients attribution (which may vary a bit depending on specifics) generally include:

• ruler appearing on coin, or issuing authority
• mint
• issue (which implies date), often indicated by some issue marks
• reverse type - design and legend
• bust type and obverse legend

Comparing to your example ship token, the only thing there that would be of relevance would probably be the mint ("H"), and the rest would just be die details unless stylistic differences were being used to identify the issue/date.

 

Thanks, @Heliodromus. This gets more and more complex, at least to me. The five factors you mentioned re:attribution will be helpful indeed. It does appear that the more modern coins may be much simpler to identify? Finding the mintmark requires, I would say, just a basic understanding of numismatics. I can go through old postings here, with or without the help of the software "index." I also have 10 years of American Journal of Numismatics (AJN) which I haven't read very much and I suspect there are studies there about this. ATB

[Ten-Speed]

6 hours ago, ominus1 said:

...ole Jed    .ahaha!.,  i 4got about that  yup he was indeed1  good catch there!...:)....did you know about that @Ten-Speed??  🙂

Hello @ominus1. All the while I was working on this--it was not on my mind (or maybe it's in a messy storeroom in my mind.) I did know about it after reading a few news items. Buddy Ebsen was a highly intelligent man. So good of you to note this which led to a good discussion.

[Phil Anthos]

Whoooo-eee!

[ominus1]

34 minutes ago, Ten-Speed said:

Hello @ominus1. All the while I was working on this--it was not on my mind (or maybe it's in a messy storeroom in my mind.) I did know about it after reading a few news items. Buddy Ebsen was a highly intelligent man. So good of you to note this which led to a good discussion.

..well thanks but now it was @akeady who 1st brought it to attention ( i had to be reminded ) so i reckon he should git the credit mostly....(seems its a small world don't it?! ^^)

[Ten-Speed]

Thank you @akeady!

[Theodosius]

What most people do at first is dabble in learning different cultures and time periods until they find an area that really appeals to them. Then they narrow down their focus to that area, say Roman Republican, which I believe the main types can be described in one volume. This makes the coins, history, culture much more manageable to really study and for some people, master. For some this continues to be their lifetime focus. For some the goal is to advance the numismatic knowledge in their area.

There are also people who like to continue to dabble all across history and not really specialize in one area.  Both approaches are equally valid and various members here represent both applications. My main interest is Greek coins due to their amazing artwork, the downside can be high prices and less documentation about the time period compared to Roman and other periods. I know most of the main Greek types but never tried to learn all the 50,000? varieties of each. I do also dabble in Roman, Byzantine, world crowns and United States to feed the hobby when no affordable Greeks I want are available. 😊

There really is no right and wrong way to collect. Knowing what others enjoy can help you find ideas that enhance your experience too. I hope this helps. 😊

John

[Heliodromus]

On 6/18/2024 at 7:23 PM, Ten-Speed said:

Thanks, @Heliodromus. This gets more and more complex, at least to me. The five factors you mentioned re:attribution will be helpful indeed. It does appear that the more modern coins may be much simpler to identify?

I'd tend to disagree, at least if you're talking about giving a detailed attribution of a modern coin down to the specific die varieties used, in which case you'd need to be using die variety information specific to the individual coin type.

The exact steps of attributing ancients (I was just trying to give you a general flavor) depends on the area and reference work you are attributing to, but typically there are just a few factors, common to all the coins in that reference, with no need to know type-specific die varieties/criteria such as those of your ship token.

As with most things, there are of course exceptions, so for example attributing late roman bronzes is normally very easy and straightforward, but once in a while as John notes the RIC VI/VII authors unwisely chose to throw us a curve ball and make attribution dependent on subjective stylistic criteria, or worse yet unknowables such as was the coin made before/after someone else died (this being how they chose to divide RIC VI and RIC VII).

[Ten-Speed]

Thanks again for your information. I still don't know all the main points, but in time I hope to. I am doing some homework on this and hope to have a lengthier posting after I have put some time and thought into this. I am also learning by reading the postings of the member's coins. 

4 hours ago, Heliodromus said:

I'd tend to disagree, at least if you're talking about giving a detailed attribution of a modern coin down to the specific die varieties used, in which case you'd need to be using die variety information specific to the individual coin type.

The exact steps of attributing ancients (I was just trying to give you a general flavor) depends on the area and reference work you are attributing to, but typically there are just a few factors, common to all the coins in that reference, with no need to know type-specific die varieties/criteria such as those of your ship token.

As with most things, there are of course exceptions, so for example attributing late roman bronzes is normally very easy and straightforward, but once in a while as John notes the RIC VI/VII authors unwisely chose to throw us a curve ball and make attribution dependent on subjective stylistic criteria, or worse yet unknowables such as was the coin made before/after someone else died (this being how they chose to divide RIC VI and RIC VII).