Augustus Pergamum Sestertius

Nice coin, but I'm not sure that the rev inscription is correct. CA rather than SC?

maybe RPC 4106,1. albert
http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/...RPC_4104.jpg

@paul, thanks for supplying that interesting link with the SC vs CA discussion.

Nice addition, Imperator!

I too enjoy seeing this coin (although it's a little too dark on my monitor) and the reference adds so much. But perhaps someone can set me straight. Paul, this is not about you. Your reference just reminded me once more of a problem that gets to me every so often. It is a widespread problem, and I am sure I will pay for having spoken of it.

***************WARNING: rant ahead******************

This is the second time in as many weeks I have been referred to this article and in neither case did the reference include giving credit where credit is due. It is not enough to give credit to the person who referred to the work via a link, the real credit belongs to the person who wrote it in the first place.

Humphrey Sutherland was deservedly an important numismatist. Important for the mass of knowledge he acquired about ancient Roman coins in particular, which he shared through a host of publications. (How many know that he was a major player in the creation of RIC and wrote volume VI himself?) Yet there is a tendency today in making references, to refer people to the work but to give credit to the website and overlook the author entirely. Crediting the website is like saying I found it in a book in such-and-such library. That has it's place too in making referrals, but not when crediting sources.

When making references to someone's work it is not only polite to give them credit by mentioning their name as author, it also helps the rest of us begin to recognize the important names in the hobby. This business of referring people to websites instead of authors is a holdover from the way papers and projects got written when in high school. The shame is in the teachers who allow their students to cut corners and get sloppy with recognizing the hard work of those who wrote their source material.

Most of us on this list are not in high school. In some cases we are far from those days. So let our scholarship show that as adults we appreciate the benefits of hard work. Let us give credit to those who wrote what we are reading, and mention their names.

I'm sorry you took it personally, Paul, because I went out of my way to say it was not about you. Your post was just the lightning rod, it could have been by anyone. From all I have seen on this list you are a nice person, who IS helpful and knows a good deal about coins. I'm glad to have your acquaintance, and apologize for hurting your feelings.

My disappointment has been building up for a while. It has become NORMAL to see the name of an author stripped from his work. Not just once in a while, but rather so often that many people don't recognize the source of the work even when a name is given. That does not speak well of the hobby, IMO. It isn't about glory, its about respect and good instruction. Is it really too much to ask that people include the name of the person who wrote something they found useful?

If there is a culture that feels strongly that I am out of line for raising the question, please explain it to me.


Added:
Courtesy of Wikipedia:
Carol Humphrey Vivian Sutherland, CBE (5 May 1908 - 14 May 1986), known as Humphrey Sutherland, was an English numismatist.

Sutherland was born in Merton Park, Surrey. He was the younger brother of the painter Graham Sutherland. He was educated at Westminster School and Christ Church, Oxford. In 1932 he became an assistant keeper in the coin room at the Ashmolean Museum, and from 1939 he also lectured in numismatics at the University of Oxford. He was appointed keeper of the coin room in 1957 and retired in 1975. He was awarded the medal of the Royal Numismatic Society in 1954.[1]

He was appointed a Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in 1970.