The Literature of the "Methodology of Classical Coins"

I asked for a reading list of works setting out the methodology of the type of numismatics practised by private collectors on wholly decontextualised coins. In reply I was told, in a boastful text, by one of the officers of the ACCG (a coin dealer) that such reference works could be found in "a reasonably comprehensive list of key references here: http://www.classicalcoins.com/page109.html". This link in fact goes to the website of the dealer's own shop ("Classical Coins" based in Goleta, California).

1) Now if we turn to the website, we might have expected to find that reading list prefaced by another page:

Collectors of ancient coins use coin reference books to understand and classify their collections. Coin books, and related publications such as auction catalogues and price lists, are collectively described as numismatic literature. Classical Coins offers different resources for those interested in numismatic literature about ancient coins.  

When we look at the numismatic literature being sold by the shop, we note there is no section there called "theory and methodology of numismatic research" (the nearest I suppose would be "general books")* The other page called "Recommended Reference Books" ("list of books we have found to be particularly good value, as a guide to starting your numismatic library") mostly lists pal Wayne Sayles' books, so these are the reference books used in tabletop numismatics by these scholars?

2) The quoted "numismatic bibliography" however is floating free in the "Introduction" section (surely this should be the other way round?). There is no text introducing this list of catalogues and descriptive treatments of the "coins of..." ilk.

The actual use of this list however is easier to see on an example. Let's have a look at the "Premier Roman" offers from Classical coins. The current first offer on the page is:

R1208 1846 Aelius Caesar: AR 17 Denarius $400.00 / Obv. L AELIVS CAESAR Bare hd. r./  Rev. TR POT COS II / CONCORD Concordia std. l. / 3.31 g / Sear 1208; RIC 436 

To note, this is not one of those famed "five-dollar specials" staple of the dug-up-coin-dealers' arguments, so throwing in a printout with the determined collecting history would not be too big a strain on the profit margin. There are some cryptic numbers which presumably link to precisely that information in the dealer's business records. The rest is fairly obvious, and right at the end, instead of any kind of provenance, we find "Sear 1208; RIC 436". It turns out that this "numismatic bibliography" is there so you know what that means. The first number means that a picture of a coin like this can be found in Sear's book which the list tells us.... um, er.... hmmm. [superb 'scholarly' referencing there by the megamonster numismopolymath, Actually it probably means, doesn't it, that important reference work for beginner collectors: D. Sear, Roman Coins and Their Values. London, 1988 (and later editions which Welsh does not acknowledge). The second number means that a picture of a similar coin can be found in - the list actually tells us this time - H. Mattingley et al., The Roman Imperial Coinage. 10 vol. London, 1923-1994 under number "436" on some page or other in the ten-volume set.

So the full extent of the use of the books listed in dealer Dave Welsh's booklist to which he refers me (calling me an "ignoramus" into the bargain) is to compare coins being sold with similar ones in an illustrated catalogue. Why? I suspect the real reason for this is to illustrate to the client that the seller has enough books and enough knowledge to be able to find a picture that looks like the coin he's selling (Coiney thinks: "Gosh, with abilities like that, and who has books, it must be kosher!").

So can we infer from this "numismatic methodology"  ACCG dealers are offering the word is like one of those 'spot the difference in these pictures' puzzles in kiddies' comics?  

The dealers and collectors never tire of telling us that "coins were mass-produced" and therefore we should not fret if several hundred thousands of them are hoiked with other artefacts out of archaeological sites because "few of them are unique" (which seems to be totally dodging the issue that is the real concern). This duplication however lends itself to collecting according to the book, like stamp collectors, filling gaps in a series as presented in one of the standard catalogues without which no philatellic library is complete.  In what way is this kind of coin collecting (aka "numismatics") different from stamp-collecting (dignified by the name "Philately")? Is not real numismatics something else? See some of the titles I highlighted here the day before yesterday.

My text with which the coineys began their insulting attacks asked to what extent this kind of by-the-book collecting exists in dugup antiquitism. So far in all the fluster, my original question has not received an answer, but the very fact that this 'by the catalogue number' listing is the method of selling of "Classical Coins" suggests it could play a dominant role.


 *note From the Coin's Point of View with reference to some recent Gang of Seven coiney comments...

Vignette: Little house on a prarie