9of 9
  • 54 messages
  • April 13, 2009 21:20
1K
added
2.5K
prices
500
reviews
50
posts
April 13, 2009 21:20

I have no idea how many collectors of Roman and/or antique coins there are exactly in the Netherlands (possibly a few hundred to a maximum of a thousand?), but to encourage more of these Dutch collectors to put their collection online, I think it would be nice to have a separate Roman coins section to the Coins section on Catawiki.
My personal collection is of course already online on my own website ( http://www.chijanofuji.nl/Roman_Coins.html ) and also on www.tantaluscoins.com (to be precise on http://www.tantaluscoins.com/ browse.php?uname=C… ), but it would be great if catawiki lowered the threshold that apparently still exists for Dutch collectors of antique coins.
At the moment, the coin input fields do not seem to be fully sufficient for entering Roman coins.
For example, there are no rules for specifying characters separately in the left field, right field and the trim. Especially for late Roman coins (from the period described in RIC V ) the above fields are an absolute must.
Also a separate field for coin location, as well as for the legend on the front and back is actually necessary, whereby I would like to give tantaluscoins.com from my internet friend Rasiel Suarez as an example.
I understand, of course, that adding such many means extra work for Rene and/or other site administrators/programmers, and I don't expect this to happen any time soon. The above is for suggestion only.
As an example, I will enter some coins from my collection to Catawiki…
Request to the administrators:
Since during the Roman Empire there was no mention of the countries as we know them today, I ask if it is possible, please, to leave the title "Roman Empire" as a country, followed if applicable (for late Roman) by the mint.
For the field "Nominal value" the value can be used that the Romans themselves also used, namely converted to "Denarii Communes". I can post a conversion table if needed.
For the “Era” field, I suggest starting with “Roman Empire” followed by the designation and years also used by RIC .
Now see my change to catawiki no. 247095 and my just added coin: catawiki no. 428839 .

Message has been translated from Dutch
Show original message
  • 16 messages
  • April 14, 2009 14:35
250
added
April 14, 2009 14:35
You definitely have a point that the current organization of coins on Catawiki does not connect seamlessly with Roman and antique coins.
In the early days of Catawiki, euro coins and world coins in particular were added, which in most cases can be allocated to a country. I agree to use “Roman Empire” in the descriptions.
In addition, we may also consider:
  • Rename the input field “country”
  • Do not make the input field “country” mandatory
    For example, if you look on eBay ( http://munten.shop.ebay.nl/ ) you will see that a distinction is made created in the following categories:
  • Ancient and Medieval Coins
  • European non-euro coins
  • Dutch non-euro coins
  • Global Coins
    I am not saying we should use such a classification, but it does pay to think about how Catawiki for coins to organize to make it easier / more logical for the end user to enter coins.
    I cannot say anything about the face value of Roman coins because I am not familiar with it. How do catalogs state the value of a Roman coin? If the default is the “Denarii Communes” then I would indeed use it for face value.
    The proposal for the era makes sense to me.
Message has been translated from Dutch
Show original message
  • 54 messages
  • April 14, 2009 15:34
1K
added
2.5K
prices
500
reviews
50
posts
April 14, 2009 15:34

Catalogs do not list face values but are limited to the coin type. However, the value of the various coins has changed considerably over time.
The ideal situation for Roman/ancient coins would therefore be a separate coin/coin-type field…
For clarification below.
At the time of Augustus and the first Julio-Claudian emperors, there were the following coins (with the face value in denarii, or denarii communes) after them, although at that time the standard unit of conversion was actually still given in Assen:
1. Aureus – Gold – 25 DC (400 Axes).
2. Quinarius-Aureus – Gold 12.5 DC (200 Axes).
3. Denarius – silver – 1 DC (16 Axes).
4. Quinarius – Silver – 1/2 DC (8 Axes).
5. Sestertius – orichalcum – 1/4 DC (4 Axes).
6. Dupondius – orichalcum – 1/8 DC (2 Axes).
7. Axis - Copper - 1/16 DC (1 Axis).
8. Semis – orichalcum – 1/32 DC (1/2 As).
9. Quadrans - Copper - 1/64 DC (1/4 Axis).
By the 3rd century, the Quinarius, Dupondius, Semis and Quadrans had disappeared.
In the course of that century, even the denarius disappeared and the silver Antoninianus was introduced, with a value of 2 denarii (2 DC).
With Diocletian's currency reform in 294 AD. everything is turned upside down:
1. Aureus – Gold – 2400 DC.
2. Argenteus - Silver - 1/24 Aureus - 100 DC.
3. Follis (aka nummus) – bronze + silver layer – 1/20 Argenteus – 5 DC.
4. Post-reform Antoninianus – bronze + silver layer – 2 DC.
Between 301 and 308 there are actually still the same 4 types of coins, but the value is now as follows:
1. Aureus – Gold – 2400 DC.
2. Argenteus - Silver - 1/24 Aureus - 100 DC.
3. Follis/nummus – bronze + silver layer – 1/5 Arg. – 10 post-reform Ants – 20 DC.
4. Post-reform Antoninianus – bronze + silver layer – 2 DC.
Constantine the Great changed everything once again, and introduced some new gold and silver coins, which, however, did not last long and which I will therefore omit for the sake of convenience…
Gradually the Follis/nummus became smaller and smaller (and with less and even no silver layer at all). Between 308 and 348 this currency was and remained the standard unit (although everything was still converted into DC)
From 348 to 353 the situation was as follows (omitting gold coins):
1. Maiorina – bronze – unknown number of DC.
2. Centenionalis – bronze – possibly 100 DC.
3. 1/2 Centenionalis - bronze - possibly 50 DC.
After that it became a chaos and little is actually known about values and types of coins (or names thereof).
From about AD 313, collectors and numismatists therefore often classify the bronze coins by size and weight. They then speculate in decreasing size/weight of coin types AE1 , AE2, AE3 , AE4 (and sometimes unofficially of the tiny AE5 )...

Message has been translated from Dutch
Show original message
  • 497 messages
  • April 14, 2009 17:47
10K
added
10K
prices
25
info pages
50K
reviews
500
posts
April 14, 2009 17:47

First of all, thank you very much for introducing these antique coins. This is far from my familiar territory and it's nice to see someone filling up enthusiastically. I respect your knowledge of this particular area and can only unanimously respond to your suggestions regarding era, nominal value and descriptions.
As a "country", "Roman Empire" seems very logical indeed. This must remain a mandatory field.
The fact that the country as such no longer exists is no objection. The same goes for “Biafra” for example.
The periods indicated by you are exactly in accordance with the rest of the site “Country - Description (years)” and therefore fine.
Couldn't you enter the coin type as face value?
What do you mean by "characters in the left field", "right field" and the "cut-off"? Can you explain to me why these fields are important, and to what extent you cannot put them in the “details” field?

Message has been translated from Dutch
Show original message
  • 54 messages
  • April 14, 2009 18:57
1K
added
2.5K
prices
500
reviews
50
posts
April 14, 2009 18:57


Couldn't you enter the coin type as face value?
Certainly, if that is allowed, please. I have now also done this.
bq.
What do you mean by “characters in the left field”, “right field” and the “cut-off”? Can you explain to me why these fields are important, and to what extent you cannot put them in the “details” field?
With late Roman coins (starting from the period described in RIC V , but especially from the time of Constantine the Great and Licinius) various signs are added by the mint workshops both in the left field, right field as in the crop.
Sometimes these mint marks are meant to be able to see in which city / city the coin was minted (this is often indicated in the cut-off, but also elsewhere), often they even indicate in which specific workshop (officina) of a city the coin is beaten. Other characters are used to indicate a value.
These things can be indicated under “details”, but then they cannot be searched and sorted by. Due to the fact that 1 character - and even where this character is located on the coin - sometimes makes the difference between a particular coin from the standard catalog (RIC - The Roman Imperial Coinage) and another that is otherwise completely identical, this is important for collectors of Roman coins.

Message has been translated from Dutch
Show original message
  • 54 messages
  • April 14, 2009 19:42
1K
added
2.5K
prices
500
reviews
50
posts
April 14, 2009 19:42

Now that I have entered exactly 1 currency from each period, I will list the periods that I have created below. I have followed the division of the various volumes of The Roman Imperial Coinage /> Roman Empire – Augustus to Vitellius (31 BC-69)
Roman Empire – Vespasian to Domitian (69-96)
Roman Empire – Nerva to Hadrian (96-138)
Roman Empire – Antoninus Pius to Commodus (138-192)
Roman Empire – Pertinax to Geta (192-217)
Roman Empire – Macrinus to Pupienus (217-238)
Roman Empire – Gordian III to Uranius Antoninus (238-253)
Roman Empire – Valerian to Florian (253-276)
Roman Empire – Probus to Amandus (276-293)
Roman Empire – The Tetrarchy from the currency reform of Diocletian (294-313)
Roman Empire – Constantine and Licinius (313-337)
Roman Empire – The Family of Constantine the Great (337-364)
Roman Empire – Valentinian I to Theodosius I (364-395)
Roman Empire – The shared empire until the fall of the western parts (395-491)
And then there remains a not unimportant question that you may have already seen coming... ;-)
Is it possible in catawiki to enter dates before Christ in a way that can be sorted correctly?

Message has been translated from Dutch
Show original message
  • 16 messages
  • April 14, 2009 20:16
250
added
April 14, 2009 20:16
That looks good Chijanofuji!

In Catawiki, is it possible to enter dates before Christ in a way that can be sorted correctly?
That is a good question! If I look at the main page ( www.catawiki.nl ) then at the moment the oldest item is a coin that you entered today (from year 37). In other words no items have been entered from before Christ / the year 0. I suspect that the years are stored as integers and that the years are sorted based on a series of absolute numbers (-2, -1, 0, 1, 2). For example, you could try to enter -50 with a 50 BC coin. You can then see in the corresponding overview (eg Roman Empire) whether the coin is displayed first. It is best to just experiment with what happens. If there is no solution, the creators of the site will have to be approached to come up with a solution.

Message has been translated from Dutch
Show original message
  • 54 messages
  • April 14, 2009 21:04
1K
added
2.5K
prices
500
reviews
50
posts
April 14, 2009 21:04

I suspect that the years are stored as integers and that the years are sorted based on a series of absolute numbers (-2, -1, 0, 1, 2). For example, you could try to enter -50 with a 50 BC coin. You can then see in the corresponding overview (eg Roman Empire) whether the coin is displayed first. It is best to just experiment with what happens.
And indeed! Entering -15 for a coin tiered 15-13 BC. just works. This is also correctly indicated in all overviews and sorting by year…

Message has been translated from Dutch
Show original message
  • 28 messages
  • July 28, 2010 02:32
25
posts
July 28, 2010 02:32

Besides www.munthunter.forum2go.nl there is also something like www.muntenbodemvondsten.nl , where my name is Muntenman, and where the majority of Roman collectors are affiliated.

Message has been translated from Dutch
Show original message
9of 9