When I wrote "Sometimes you have to see the coin", I forgot to give you the converse: "Sometimes you don't have to see the coin".

In fact, it's often impossible to see the coin. The simplest example I can give is when you're doing a die-link study. Rounding up all the recorded coins for the study is usually impossible - some of them may no longer even exist (destroyed during WWII for example). Die-link work is always done from photographs, to insist otherwise would prevent any work from even starting.

Does this matter in practical numismatic work? - you bet it does. John Sills, an eminent worker in the Ancient British series, did a die-link study of Gaulish gold staters. He noticed that one set of linked coins were only found in Britain. He argued convincingly that these were a British, not Gaulish issue - and identified the earliest known coins struck in Britain in the process.

I know for a fact that Sills never saw two of the coins - they were sitting here in the USA. But he exercised judgment, and decided that he could do the required study in a competent way, working just from photographs. He promptly published an important numismatic finding "without see the coin"....and he got it right.

You'll notice I didn't criticize Wayne Sayles for questioning the coin in Israel. I suspected he was using the converse of the rule. I think Sayles exercised excellent judgment in this case. He has reasonable cause to ask a question about the evidence. The people who presented the evidence should reasonably answer Sayles' question.

Does this matter? Again, you bet it does. Once something become "common knowledge", it's hard to keep the archaeological record straight.

I imagine you'll want the posting "Sometimes you HAVE the coin and doesn't make a bit of difference".

To read the earlier E-Sylum articles, see:
SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO SEE THE COIN(www.coinbooks.org/esylum_v16n52a10.html)
NOTES FROM E-SYLUM READERS: DECEMBER 29, 2013 : You Should Always See The Coin(www.coinbooks.org/esylum_v16n53a09.html)