| Author |
 Replies: 9 / Views: 1,510 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
61 Posts |
Today I completed a study which I'd like to share. It ranks all the emperors by rarity according to a math formula and places them into one of ten groups. There's a spreadsheet at the end which you can download and use to rate how rare one emperor/empress is compared to another or as a standalone guide of how hard (as in expensive and patient!) it would be to get one of their coins. http://dirtyoldcoins.com/Roman-Coins-Blog/Ras |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3772 Posts |
Interesting and thanks for sharing.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23731 Posts |
Ras, is this similar to the one you have in the ERIC series?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4778 Posts |
Pretty interesting. Thanks for posting this. Here are my top two rarest Roman rulers from my collection: Majorian Libius Severus:  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
4208 Posts |
Ah, a much awaited (and appreciated) update to a very useful list (the ERIC II list is here for those who werent aware of it). ERIC II had my Zenonis at 185 and now its down to 175! Looks like its time I lumped the thing. |
|
Valued Member
 United States
61 Posts |
I've been doing these lists for a long time. In the first ERIC I just "winged it" going by personal experience which, now that I can review them side by side, I see that it's embarrassingly inaccurate. Just goes to show that one's hunch is never more than anecdotal knowledge at best. By the time the second edition came around I had a couple years' worth of data and now that I'm comparing them side by side can see that it's pretty good overall. I had about a quarter million records at the time which is a pretty decent set but now that set has grown almost threefold so resolution in sampling has been much improved. More importantly, the 2nd ed. list suffered from bad categorizations. Basically, I left it up to the computer to decide which record belonged where. If some guy on ebay mislabeled an Elagabalus as a Caracalla or whatever then it did its little share of skewing the results. This happens A LOT and is especially bad with rare rulers because of the compounded effect of jokers trying to pass off some unidentifiable AE4 as a rare emperor and because those same rare rulers attract so many forgers. There were also tons of Roman provincials "contaminating" the data, coins in lots throwing off the curve and fewer venues. All of that was cleaned up so this current list is without a doubt more accurate. The cleaning up is ongoing and by the time the 3rd edition is ready I think the perfectionist in me will be able to vouch for each and every record being in their perfect place. I expect there to be some final settling, and the database is growing by about 1,000 records daily, so the sampling set is getting better and better but as is I think the new list is very accurate. Ras |
|
Pillar of the Community
3772 Posts |
So, do I understand right that Greek Imperials and Roman Provincials are excluded?
If yes, is there an intention to produce a separate list for those and even a combined one?
|
|
Valued Member
United States
61 Posts |
For those who are using the list to complete an imperial type set you can upload your coins to Tantalus and make a grid that tracks this automatically. Here's my personal collection arranged by rarity http://www.tantaluscoins.com/coins/grid164.phpRas |
|
Valued Member
United States
61 Posts |
Nope, I don't really do much with provincials. However, I can provide this spreadsheet in the same format so you can substitute the numbers and get your own results or add them to the imperials for a combined. The database has 68,000 provincials but of those 34k remain uncategorized and no major effort has been done to clean it up so basically you're looking at ERIC II-level accuracy there. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx...?usp=sharingRas |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4964 Posts |
very interesting, thanks ras! but this made my brain lock up..  |
| |
Replies: 9 / Views: 1,510 |
|
Posted 12/16/2014 7:23 pm
