On pages 495-496 RIC VIII splits the hut coins for Constans at Cyzicus into two FH(a) (FEL TEMP REPA-RATIO) and FH(b) (FEL TEMP REP-ARATIO). These legend breaks don't always elicit a new RIC entry but in this case they do. With dot SMKX the Constans coins are RIC VIII Cyzicus 81 and 82 with RIC 81 known for Officina Delta, Epsilon and S alll being rated common and RIC 82 known for officina Delta and Epsilon both being rated as Scarce. I have acquired an example from officina S which is unlisted in RIC and I have been unable to locate another and thought it worthy of sharing here. Constans AE2 Obv:- D N CONSTA-NS P F AVG, Laureate and rosette-diademed, draped, cuirassed bust left, globe in right hand Rev:- FEL TEMP REP-ARATIO, Helmeted soldier, spear in left hand, advancing right, head left; with his right hand he leads a small bare-headed figure from a hut beneath a tree. The spear points downwards, between the soldier's legs Minted in Cyzicus; (//dot SMKS), A.D. 348-350 Reference:– RIC VIII Cyzicus 82 var (unlisted in RIC for this workshop)
I have no great love for RIC's decision to make separate listings for coins different by only a letter space break. Mine is a normal RIC 81 listed as common. some dies had to move the A to the right side making the RIC 82. Elsewhere in RIC we get one number for a dozen variations and here they number the split?
Imagine the scenario for us Probus collectors where a dozen varieties for a RIC number is commonplace and twenty plus is a regular occurence. I bought the coin because I liked the almost melancholic expression on the obverse, I didn't have one from the dot issue only from the earlier star issue and it was cheap. It wasn't until I was cataloguing it that I found it unlisted and hadn't noted the separate numbers forlegend splits in RIC VIII until that point.
I can not help thinking that the guy who wrote various volumes must have fought like cats and dogs around the museum. They seemed to agree on so very little when it comes to writing a coin book. I know I would have trouble being friends with people who thought it OK to make some of the calls they did but I'm not sure which ones bother me most. If they were to give a prize for least user friendly volume of a numismatic book, I don't know who would get my vote. Worse, I am troubled by the thought that I might not do any better if I were the one designing such a work.
Volume V has my vote. Just list all the varieties that are vaguely close under one number, list some bust types and some mintmarks and let people wonder which ones really existed and which ones didn't. Why bother with making the chronology consitent for an emperor at a given mint? If a coin would have an identical description then for one type split it into two entries but for another just give it one.
I'm too hard on the pros. I actually admire the way they threw up their hands an gave up on volume X where 90% (a guess - a lowball guess) of the coins are missing so much of the legend that any ID is a good ID and arranging by mints as done by earlier volumes would not have worked at all. Certainly V gets my vote too but they all have their mystifying moments. The next books on computer will have the advantage of being made searchable on the users' choices of parameters. Will there ever be new paper and board editions?
