Have been trying to find any difference between these two issues of Cistophori from Ephesus: https://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.1(2).aug.482 (unfortunately no pictures) and http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.1(2).aug.479 but I can't find any. Some examples among many others are: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=8934944 (for RIC 482) https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1082944 (for RIC 479) Can someone put me out of my misery, please?
Looks like extremely small differences in celator style. The differences could have been called out due to a specific hoard / archeological find. one has the drapery on the reverse coming strait down vs curvy on the other one has the two animals facing each other on the reverse and the other has one facing right and the other facing to the side.
Actually the animals are confronting (i.e., facing each other) on both types, if you look carefully. I don't see any difference in the descriptions, other than the speculated dates of minting. The different RIC numbers represent different examples from Sutherland's 1970 publication on the Cistophori of Augustus.
Thank you so much @DonnaML and @Mr Ancient Coin for your info. I did notice the detail of the drapery, however, looking at acsearch examples, you can find both styles in 479 and also 482. Guess I'll have to use as attribution RIC 482/479
The only objective difference for the 2nd and 3rd issues seems to be two distinct sets of interlinked dies. Assuming we're talking about the same thing edition to edition, here is the explanation from the introduction to the 1st (RIC 1, 1st ed., pp. 35-36):
This is the Cistophorus: 25 x 26 mm, 11.136 g RIC I, 2nd edition, 479/482; BMC 694; BN 922; Sutherland group V–VIγ; RSC 33; RPC I 2215;
I don't know about that, pretty sure on the one example that one of the animals is looking to the side (you can see his ears, he's looking "towards you", try zooming in .
The difference seems to be the positioning and spacing of the obv. legend: IMP.CAESAR unbroken and completely or mostly behind Augustus' neck on RIC 479 IMP.CAE - SAR with CAE below Augustus' neck and SAR below his chin on RIC 482. On your coin the legend is mostly off flan, but clearly was IMP.CAE - SAR on the die, so RIC 482. By a misprint in his RIC volume, Sutherland wrongly indicated that both of these successive groups of cistophori had the same obv. legend positioning, IMP.CAE - SAR as on your specimen.
If this is correct, then every single one of the 17 coins on acsearch categorized as RIC 479 is actually RIC 482, because not one appears to have IMP CAESAR unbroken. They look the same in that regard as the more than 100 specimens ascribed to RIC 482. Where did you see examples of RIC 479 with the legend unbroken, or see that distinction drawn?
From the examples on CNG sold coins, I think I see the difference and it's nearly as Custis says (or exactly, maybe): RIC 479: https://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=300655 RIC 482: https://www.cngcoins.com/Lot.aspx?LOT_ID=1334 The IMP.CAE is unbroken in 479, while it's divided by the neck in 482. At least, CNG seem consistent. OCRE lists nothing under 482, but under 479 there are examples of both types - this is a failing of OCRE - it's only as accurate as the collections it cites. http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.1(2).aug.479 ATB, Aidan.
Donna, You are correct! The altar type only occurs with the obv. legend below portrait, IMP.CAE - SAR. It is presumed to have replaced the earlier Sphinx type which had obv. legend behind portrait. So apparently RIC 480-482 are superfluous and merely repeat RIC 477-479. In RPC 2213-2215 these alleged six types are reduced to three types, each citing two RIC numbers: 477=480, 478=481, and 479=482.
@curtislclay, do you know if they are reducing also RIC I (2nd edition) 477 and 480? It seems to be a similar case: http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.1(2).aug.477 http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.1(2).aug.480 (no pictures)
Are you comparing the first and second editions? If so, I'm sure what Curtis said applies to the second edition. In fact, I think you should always assume unless otherwise specified that when someone cites RIC I, they mean the second edition from 1984.
As it turns out, the snippets I posted above are in fact from the 1984 revised edition, not the 1st. I've had it for a long time. Instead of looking, I assumed. Regarding the division of issues 2 and 3 on the basis of discrete die sets, it seems to me that two contemporary workshops would be as satisfying an explanation as successive issues.
