Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Roman Collector, post: 7955951, member: 75937&quot;]Yes, it is, but they are large and have extensive photographic plates. They were published in a limited print run and are in high demand. It&#039;s a supply and demand thing. I think Aidan got RIC X for a steal! </p><p><br /></p><p>You -- and I don&#039;t mean <i>you</i> in the sense of <i>one</i> but you in particular, [USER=115909]@Gam3rBlake[/USER] -- need some books. However, I do not recommend RIC for you. </p><p><br /></p><p>First of all, you&#039;re interested in Roman Republican coins in addition to imperial ones and RIC doesn&#039;t include them. Secondly, the work is quite out of date, and the introductory material (coin dating, place of minting, and so on) -- while useful -- has been in many cases disproven by subsequent scholarship. Lastly, while it is very extensive, RIC is not complete (no reference can be) and its estimate of a coin&#039;s &quot;rarity&quot; is based upon its representation in the main museum collections at the time. Its biggest fault, however, is that RIC has NUMEROUS listings for coins that don&#039;t really exist, but were cited from Cohen by Mattingly &amp; Sydenham without verification. For example, Wiczay may misdescribe a coin, which is listed by Cohen (who cites Wiczay without verification) and is re-cited in RIC without verification, thus perpetuating misinformation for a century. </p><p><br /></p><p>Moreover, it often includes unofficial types that are known only from ancient plated fourees or &quot;barbarous&quot; imitations without noting that they were not official mint products. This is a particular problem with the Severan listings. </p><p><br /></p><p>RIC is in need of a serious upgrade -- and certain volumes are in the process of being upgraded or were recently upgraded (RIC II, vol. 3, for example). </p><p><br /></p><p>For the money, the best general Roman coin catalog is David Sear&#039;s Roman Coins and Their Values. The introductory material alone would serve you well. Is David Sear right about everything? No. The dates he assigns to undated coins is wrong in many cases, such as the dates assigned to coins issued under Septimius Severus (because he uses Hill as a source), or so vague as to be useless (i.e. dating just about every coin of Faustina II without filiation to &quot;AD 161-175.&quot; </p><p><br /></p><p>For the money, the best catalog for Roman Imperial coins before Gordian III is BMCRE, which is extensively illustrated, includes every coin in the British Museum collection at the time, and references other museum collections when the British Museum collection lacks a specimen. If a coin is dubious, it notes the fact. But its introductory material is out-of-date and the catalog remains incomplete, as all catalogs must.</p><p><br /></p><p>You might think that online sources are more reliable because they allow for information to be up-to-date, but they aren&#039;t. For the most part, online sources are based on previous references (OCRE, for example, is based on RIC and rather uncritically so) and rely on people submitting accurate information to the site (Wildwinds) or dealers accurately describing what they are selling (acsearchinfo, etc). It is not an uncommon occurrence, for example, for a coin to be inaccurately attributed at Wildwinds.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in