I am trying to putting the Sear number of my Roman/Byzantines coins, but I have trouble of finding a specific number of a “RIC” for a Constantine. On my receipt there is a “RIC 40/4”. So I was in the wildwinds to find it, but that page apparently uses Roman digits with Arab-Hindu numerals. – I have tried to search after a “XL”, but I am lost. Anyone who can tell me how a “RIC 40/4” looks like here?: http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/constantine/i.html I have posted a picture of my coin below. Hope it helps. Thanks.
On wildwinds RIC 40 refers to the Arles mint and would be rarity R1 (not that that means anything nowadays). However, I would have guessed that yours is Aquileia mint. I am quite often wrong when it comes to identifying mints, so wait for the experts to ID it properly.
Perhaps I shall also note that It is a soli invicto comiti , and also the receipts says “315-316“ regarding mint.
Your coin is Rome mint but I am away from home and can not look it up. It is not good to try to find a close match and copy that RIC number without actually looking up the coin in the book itself. Many dealers copy ID numbers with little care so I can not comment on the 40/4 without having the book in hand. I really suggest that collectors and dealers who feel the need to use a catalog number buy the book or get over having the number. Before anyone buys a set, I recommend reading two of my pages on the books: http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/book.html#ric http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/idric.html I have no doubt you will ignore my warnings (everyone wants an easy answer) but don't complain when you find errors and confusions based on not understanding these great resources.
The 40/4 is correct. The coin is RIC 40 page 300 volume VII officina Q=quartus=4. I have not seen it presented 40/4 but I see no reason not to either. I'll point out that the coin once had a C in the reverse left field and has the draped and cuirassed bust seen from the front needed to separate the coin from RIC 39 and 41 both of which are listed as very rare while this is a C3. That a dealer put the effort into correctly identifying a coin in this grade is rather shocking but good. Most people would have not spent the effort to look up a low grade, super common type. 49 has a star and crescent in place of the C S.
I don’t want to create a new thread, so I just post it here. Regarding the coin I have listed below: Although it would be impossible to determine its sear number, I can at least be sure that it has to be Phocas? Right? I mean the three cornered face/beard, and the fact that it has 4 X’s instead of the Greeks M (typical Phocas), make the coin very likely to be a Phocas. So I can be sure that this is Phocas? No other ruler looks like him.
Maddening. Isn't it? I am really trying to get away from this for that reason. I try and collect coins from everywhere and its just not possible for me to own all of the books. Especially with some eastern coins, attributions that the referenced in big name sources change with the seasons. If anything if dealers and collectors want to reference a particular coin they should list the ISBN and then the reference. No matter where you go or what business your in Ctrl C and Ctrl V is usually the transcription method of choice and as long as that happens nothing will ever be 100% correct.
To me, that is the point. There are so many, many things for us to know about our coins that are more important than some number that most of us can not understand (tell me the difference between a 123a and 123b, don't just copy the number). I would love to see RIC issued as a single volume with expanded chapter headings and summaries of the issues without the laundry list. I do feel I benefit from looking up the coins and trying to understand the reasons for the sequencing and I am glad I own the RIC volumes I do (I never bought I-III because I have BMC for those years). I recommend them to anyone who wants them bad enough to spend the money even though they are full of what I consider faults and strange decisions. What you should get out of any book is information, not numbers. Write a book on any segment of the coin hobby but don't include a numeric listing of types and I guarantee a poor seller. It is just the way we, the collector base, think.
Balance is best. Recent scholarship has amended some of the analyses in RIC, but I enjoy reading them nonetheless. Varbanov spent a lifetime cataloging thousands of types, but his volumes have no analyses whatsoever, other than a brief introduction. I don't find this particularly useful. I can look up a provincial coin he listed, but all I can say about it is that Varbanov owned one. The same is largely true of Lindgren and any of the ANS collections. They are not without merit, however - it is good to know the various types particular to a city or region, and it's especially good to study which types are unique to a particular city or region. I've recently been reading Arie Kindler's Coinage of Bostra - hundreds of pages of analyses, historical, economic, and numismatic, in addition to many cataloged types. That's my kind of read. Frankly, I prefer to read a wikipedia article on a particular emperor or city than thumb through endless pages of coins with no analyses.
Hello again. If anyone has time to enlighten me: Do I have sufficient signs from that coin of mine (look at that oploaded photo), to deduce that is a Sear 202?: http://wildwinds.com/coins/byz/justinian_I/sb0202.jpg Because I have taking a look on all large K follis of Anastasius, Justin and Justin ii, and I always find some differences like for instance a start above or under, an another officina, lack of letters around the large cross… which make me to think that it has to be a Sear 202. Can there be an Anastasius or Justin which also bear the exact same design? Or will the identification of my coin below stands in the dark because of the bad condition?
Justin S.90 seems to fit the evidence as presented. I suppose it could be Anastasius S.44 but it would seem best to seek out photos of the three and see if the large B style seems to have been used more on one than the other.
I see the list of wildwinds is not completely as they don’t have the sear of 90 and 44. Did you not type wrong when you wrote “44”?, because Anastasius Sear 44 looks completely difference from mine: http://www.sixbid.com/browse.html?auction=300&category=4428&lot=233531 You are right that Justin sear 90 has exact the same design as Justinian sear 202 – The identification of my coin will remain in the dark for eternity. Thank you for your time.
Hello again as I don’t want to create a new thread. If anyone is expert in Byzantine cup coins and has time…I am trying to determine whether my coin should be attributed as uncertain or whether I actually have find its correct sear number?: I think that my coin have to be John II comnenus Sear 1944: http://wildwinds.com/coins/byz/john_II/i.html On the other side of that coin I think I can catch glimpses of Jesus head, shoulders and his left eye and left eye brown. – I have marked it with red color. Also my coin doesn’t actually appear to be black or black-green, but rather as grey just as the second image in that wildwinds page: http://wildwinds.com/coins/byz/john_II/sb1944.1.jpg So? Have I sufficient signs to attribute it as Sear 1944?
