I have noticed that quite a few dealers and auction houses mention "rare" or "scarce" in listings for coins that are quite common. If the coin is in my area of specialty, which is also Severan, I usually check a variety of sources myself — standard references and past sales records — to get a better idea of how "scarce" or "rare" they actually are, and am surprised when I find out that a coin so described is absolutely neither! On the other hand, sometimes I find rare varieties for coins the seller has incorrectly listed as something more common. So the errors cut both ways, either favorably or unfavorably to the buyer who may neglect to do his or her own research. I should emphasize that when I start my research to confirm the veracity of a seller's listing for any particular coin, I do so from a position of confidence in the seller and the information they are providing; I am not trying to catch the seller at being dishonest, which I don't think most intend to be. I merely want to educate myself so that hopefully my informed purchases end up outweighing my uninformed ones. Occasionally I find a "rare variant" for which I am willing to pay more. For me, when it comes to an unique variant or nearly so, condition and style are secondary to completeness of a specialist set, or perhaps the satisfaction of discovering and/or possessing the only known example of something, or one of just a handful known. I am aware that I am unlikely to recover the purchase price when it comes time to sell; but such is the cost of education. On the other hand, sometimes I am able to buy varieties relatively cheaply because they have been missed or ignored by the seller and other buyers. I was aware of the Caracalla with gorgoneion breastplate offered by Naumann, but since I don't specialize in Caracalla portraits the price was much too high for me. I have thus far avoided gorgoneion breastplates, left-facing busts, and dynastic coins with multiple portraits! In terms of "rare variant," I do enjoy the hunt and am excited by seemingly minor finds such as legend variants, or errors such as misspellings, or cuirass flap versus no flap, or partial beard versus fully bearded, or a die link to another variant type. However, I am very cautious about taking seller listings at face value.
If the second coin was unknown to the RIC authors shouldn't it be listed as a variant of RIC 45? The different bust type and mint should call for it having its own catalogue number in any future update.
Do you think that might have more to do with collecting coins from the Lyons mint than the coins of Probus? Lyons is a big city and collectors there might specialize in coins of the city, be it a coin of Probus or any other emperor.
Definitely not. RIC 45 is a Rome mint coin. Had RIC known this coin, it would have been on page 267 between 351 and 352. This volume of RIC does not mix coins of the different mints.
So, not a variant of RIC 45 noting the different mint, instead it should be catalogued as unlisted with reverse of RIC 45? Just curious. If it was in my collecting niche it would end up being RIC 351A.