Numisdata - Die section

Manuel Gozalbes

At the ECFN meeting in London, some of the Numisdata users were discussing the need to create a new section to inventory and describe the coin dies. They should be treated differently from the types, since dies are objects, whereas types are groups that reflect different combinations.

The initial proposal is to incorporate two new fields in the numismatic object: obverse dies and reverse dies, which would be linked to tch1, as this is the section designed for describing the objects.

Let's try and check how everything works

@rca, @Gosvinta, @elena

elena

Ok, I agree, let's see how it works...

rca

yes, I am very much for these extra fields to link a coin to a die, split in obverse/reverse.
BUT a question to Alex & Paco: we talked about adding a field for TYPE obverse and TYPE reverse (when a typlogy is done separately, e. g. 4th cent. AD roman bronze coinage). Do you propose to have separate fields for types and dies?

@Gosvinta, @elena @Manuel Gozalbes @Alex @PaCo

Manuel Gozalbes

This is also an interesting proposal, but it seems to me that, the best way to solve it, in order not to complicate the type section is, in parallel, through the typology of types, which has not been implemented yet. As we have discussed in different moments, seems the easiest way to describe differents kinds of types. For sure we need a typology in MIB to distinguish types from variants. For example:
Gloria Exercitus > Reverse Type
Catalogue 123 > Type
Catalogue 123a > Variant

Alex

Hi!

Ok, this thread has several topics, so let's close one of them.

Manuel Gozalbes
Catalogue 123 > Type
Catalogue 123a > Variant

Seems that the «Typology» of the type is clear to be implemented. Question what will be the correct name?

Typology
Model
??

And the this typology is a simple flat list? or it's a more complex as thesauri?

Best

rca

advantage/nice side effect of defining the (reconstructed) dies as tch1 objects (with e. g. sub-objects an sub-sub-objects for recut, die wear etc.): it has already an identifying image!

rca

@Manuel Gozalbes - as discussed in Bern and in London, a fixed classification as "obverse type" or "reverse type" does not cover everything. It works nicely for 4th cent. types, true.
But with medals in general and religious medals as well, we would have to label them in a neutral way as "side", and then attribute them as "obverse type" or "reverse type", as the dies were combined in different ways, and what we define as obverse or reverse is solely based on the specific combination after defined rules ("what is the more important side?" "who is the higher Saint?" etc.).
That is why @Alex and @PaCo proposed to have these two additional fields, in my oppinion an excellent idea.

One example: My object is on the highest level a "Christ-Mary-medal", combining a portrait of Christ with one of Mary - my "type". But then I can attribute my Christ to a specific type of Christ representation ("obverse type") and my Mary to a specific type of Mary ("reverse type"). The same Mary type might be used as a "obverse type" on other medals, there combined with a Saint, a building or an object - in all these cases Mary is "higher up in the Holy Hierarchy" and is by definition on the obverse.
The same is true for tokens etc.

Manuel Gozalbes

I agree that, under those particular circumstances, two new fields for obverse and reverse types make sense.
Maybe, fourth century coinages should be treated differently. The typology of types is also necessary, but is not enough for your medals. Let's begin and see how the system works.
🙂

Manuel Gozalbes

Apparently, a simple list should work.
I prefer model as far as typology is redundant with the section itself. Another possible name is category.
Another question is if we can share the terms among different installations. My proposal is to start with Type and Variant, the only ones for now we need in monedaiberica.
Best

elena

category seems more accurate for me, but is soooo general that in a new installation an user couldn't know for what was meant to be...

Markus

Now that this discussion has taken a different turn, I would just like to briefly note that I fully agree with Manuel's first and intial post in the thread (;