12 out of 410 Days: A New Mirror List

I took the dry erase marker to the living room mirror today to create the Turkey “To Do” List.  On it is how to do a side trip to Iran — a life long dream.  SDA is exploring the the Trans-Asian Express between Ankara and Terhan. At 59 hours plus up to 10 hours of delays ‘express’ seems euphemistic.  What an adventure though.  We’ll see.  It’s still pie in the sky.  

The morning run was way longer than any run thus far 2.65 and then ran/walked another 1.1.

I’m scheduled to go workshop my conclusion of the chapter with a colleague at 1 pm.  I think to day is the day I might cross something off the mirror list.  It’s a goal.  


2 thoughts on “12 out of 410 Days: A New Mirror List

  1. The Muses coinage are a perfect example of our tendency, in numismatics, to lose or overlook excellent past research. Some of the best analysis of this series was Borghesi’s Ouevres Numismatique in the early 19th century. He examines every details of this coinage, from the form of lettering such as the strange form of the letter V, to the dilemma of which model represents Erato. Borghesi comes to the definitive conclusion that the symbol of Erato was the flower behind the head; the muse herself carries a lyre which is distinctly different from the lyre of Terpsichore, having a squarish sound box rather than the oval soundbox of Terpsichore, in fact it is a different musical instrument. Admiral Smyth in his insightful, racy and amusing book detailing the Northumberland collection, separately arrives at the same rather obvious conclusion: flower, plus lyre type, represents Erato irrespective (!) of the position of her arm – an evidently trivial aspect. Yet somehow, we’ve lost that information, Babelon vol.11 p.364 states without comment that stance matters more than attributes, his number 12 he assigns to Erato, and number 17 to Terpsichore despite having the same attributes, merely because the stance on 17 is identical to the differently-attributed Babelon 18 with a different lyre and a tortoise behind the head. Grueber, Sydenham and Crawford copy Babelon’s attribution without comment, and the wise and surely correct views of Borghesi and Smyth are thus lost forever. What other nuggets of numismatic wisdom have we lost to such sloppiness?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s