New catalogue: Ganschow [επιλυμένο]

Hello

Please add this catalogue for Kappadokian coins.

Many thanks

Code: Ganschow I
Author: Thomas Ganschow
Title: Münzen von Kappadokien

Subtitle: Sammlung Henseler

Volume: Band I. Königreich und Kaisareia bis 192 n. Chr.
Publisher: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları
Publication location: Istanbul, Turkey
Publication year: 2018

ISBN-13: 9786053964667

ISBN-10: 6053964662
OCLC number: 1045001247

Code: Ganschow II
Author: Thomas Ganschow
Title: Münzen von Kappadokien

Subtitle: Sammlung Henseler

Volume: Band II. Kaisareia ab 193 n. Chr., Tyana, Hierapolis am Saros
Publisher: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları
Publication location: Istanbul, Turkey
Publication year: 2018

ISBN-13: 9786053964650

ISBN-10: 6053964654
OCLC number: 1123385290

N#376233

Ganschow I 881r

Hi thanks ! 

Are you sure the numerotation starts again at 0 with Band II ? 

Hello

I might be missing something, or I don't understand the question. Do you mean the numbering by numerotation? None of the volumes start at 0. Each city has its own numbering sequence, but not from 0. Caesarea starts at 1, Tyana at 1000, …

Is this about using the same code for the two volumes as you asked for the Rosenberger catalogue? For me, it's much clearer to have a full reference, including the volume number. If I see Ganschow Caesarea #900, it's impossible to know which volume it is if I actually want to check the reference book, regardless if the numbering resets or not. 

Brünhild

Hello

 

I might be missing something, or I don't understand the question. Do you mean the numbering by numerotation? None of the volumes start at 0. Each city has its own numbering sequence, but not from 0. Caesarea starts at 1, Tyana at 1000, …

 

Is this about using the same code for the two volumes as you asked for the Rosenberger catalogue? For me, it's much clearer to have a full reference, including the volume number. If I see Ganschow Caesarea #900, it's impossible to know which volume it is if I actually want to check the reference book, regardless if the numbering resets or not. 

Maybe but it is not how we implented other catalogues, at least a big part of them… 
And the issue is double-sided: by setting very granular codes to the volume, if someone register a new entry mentionning this code without indication, and if the user does not own the catalogue, then they cannot add this info properly…

Compendium

by setting very granular codes to the volume, if someone register a new entry mentionning this code without indication, and if the user does not own the catalogue, then they cannot add this info properly…

But this happens whether volumes reset the numbering or not. If a contributor finds CatalogueNumber# 123, they wouldn't know which volume it is, whether the numbers reset or not. I'm not sure this is a good criterion for setting separate volume codes.

In this particular case, it's easy based on the subtitles. I suppose if a contributor struggles with this, the reference can be added in the comments, and a referee or another contributor can record the correct volume later.

I think it's better to assign the proper citation once in the beginning rather than having every user fluster every single time they want to check the reference in the book.

So you would rework all catalogues in this mindset, like Dy F# and Dy R for France? Or even KM# ? Or just for new catalogues ?

Done https://en.numista.com/catalogue/catalogue.php?id=2356

But i'm pretty sure we'll have errors in volume attributions along the time… You'd bd surprised how ref codes are sometimes misused. Last example from this morning that I did not fixed yet : https://en.numista.com/catalogue/catalogue.php?id=783

CompendiumSo you would rework all catalogues in this mindset, like Dy F# and Dy R for France? Or even KM# ? Or just for new catalogues ?

At least for new catalogues, it makes sense to me to have complete citations, including volumes. I am not sure about the previous catalogues and the logic followed when they were added. I see examples with volume codes both for catalogues that continue numbering or not. 

One existing catalogue where I would say it makes sense to split the codes is BMC Greek:

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/catalogue.php?id=737

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/catalogue.php?id=169

As you can see, only volume 1 has a separate code, and I am not sure why. I am happy to help reassign the codes if you go one by one with new volume codes.

This one is to me particularly problematic as I am double-checking the references for the provincial coins already assigned. For some cities, it's difficult to know which volume to check. Especially for the denser areas in Anatolia, Greece, and Syria, or even for Moesia/Thrace. Some cities changed to new provinces as they became Roman and the borders changed, so they may appear for example in Mysia, Lydia, or Caria in different references. For example, Cidrama was originally in Phrygia and later in Caria. So which BMC volume to check? Assuming one even knows the region the city belongs to, which is often hard to find, or even unknown.

To me it makes sense that this time-consuming research work is only done once, when the reference is added. Rather than each user having to go through the same process again every time they need to check the catalogue.

Compendium

But i'm pretty sure we'll have errors in volume attributions along the time… You'd bd surprised how ref codes are sometimes misused. Last example from this morning that I did not fixed yet : https://en.numista.com/catalogue/catalogue.php?id=783

I believe that is quite different because it's an entirely different catalogue, not just the wrong volume.

If this is a concern, I think there can be solutions to this, such as a separate field for the volume that can be left empty if the volume is unknown, or just writing the reference in the comments when it's uncertain, which is quite easy and I've seen it done before. 

Brünhild

Compendium

But i'm pretty sure we'll have errors in volume attributions along the time… You'd bd surprised how ref codes are sometimes misused. Last example from this morning that I did not fixed yet : https://en.numista.com/catalogue/catalogue.php?id=783

I believe that is quite different because it's an entirely different catalogue, not just the wrong volume.

I know, but if people can so easily mix up books, pretty sure volumes will be hard too :-)

What we'd need is a sort of Catalogue referee status: someone we know have a certain catalogue and agree to validate all stock and flux requests about it. This big cleaning is what I did first when I became referee for Carolingian coinage

 

If this is a concern, I think there can be solutions to this, such as a separate field for the volume that can be left empty if the volume is unknown, or just writing the reference in the comments when it's uncertain, which is quite easy and I've seen it done before. 

Indeed, many improvements are possible. We already plan to improve "var." references and also precisions like “table” or “page”