As I stated in a previous thread on a different topic, I received a big heavy package in the mail today. I was happy to open it and find the 2005 Spink and Son edition of the BMC. The 2005 Spink edition is bound in red cloth with gold spine lettering and is limited to only 350 copies (plus an additional 5 copies bound in leather). In the original editions and reprints volumes IV and V were each divided into two books, but both volumes are now contained in a single book. They were printed by Cambridge University Press who devised a method of reproducing the plates that they claim make them "as good as the originals). PUBLICATION HISTORY: Vol. I by Harold Mattingly Originally Published 1923 British Museum Press reprint 1965 Spink & Son reprint 2005 Vol. II by Harold Mattingly Originally Published 1930 British Museum Press reprint 1966 Spink & Son reprint 2005 Vol. III by Harold Mattingly Originally Published 1936 British Museum Press reprint 1966 Spink & Son reprint 2005 Vol. IV by Harold Mattingly Originally Published 1940 British Museum Press reprint 1968 and 1976 Spink & Son reprint 2005 Vol. V by Harold Mattingly with the Second Edition being prepared by R.A.G. Carson and Philip Hill Originally Published 1950 British Museum Press Second Edition 1975 Spink & Son reprint 2005 Vol. VI by R.A.G. Carson Originally Published 1962 British Museum Press reprint 1976 Spink & Son reprint 2005 Harold Mattingly died in 1964 and as a result work on the BMC came to an end and it is highly likely that this set will never be completed after the passage of so much time. There is no coverage of coins minted after AD 238, so if you collect later Roman coins this set will be of little interest to you. COMPARISON OF THE REPRINTS: About a week ago I started a discussion on the merits of the 1960s reprints vs. the 2005 reprints. In that thread no one stepped forward with experience using both sets, so I was not able to decide which set was superior. I am going to offer my opinion here and to share a few photos from each set in the hopes that it might prove useful to someone considering one or more volumes of BMC in the future. I am going to be using the 1965 and 2005 editions of Volume I to make my comparisons. The first thing you will notice from the photo above is that the earlier British Museum reprint is about a half inch thicker than the Spink reprint. The 2005 is bound in a cloth cover that feels superior in quality to the older book, but unlike the older ones the 2005 is issued without dustjakets. Both editions have sewn bindings, but again the 2005 seems to be constructed better, which since it is printed and bound by Cambridge University Press is no suprise. Inside of the British Museum reprint of 1965 Inside of the Spink & Son reprint of 2005 I am no expert on paper, but I think the 2005 has a slight edge in the quality of paper used. It feels more substantial to the touch and appears a little brighter, but on the latter point age may be a factor. However, when you examine the quality and sharpness of the print (and I did under a 5x loupe) it is better in the older 1965 edition. It should be noted that both are photographically reproduced and where there was a flaw in the original edition, the same flaw will appear in BOTH reprints. However, the printing is sharper and more bold in the earlier edition. Issues of paper and print are minor to most collectors when compared to the numerous plates that are the backbone of the BMC catalog. Plate 17 from the British Museum reprint of 1965 Plate 17 from the Spink & Son reprint of 2005 In selecting the plates to photograph I tried to pick one that showed the 1965 edition to it's full advantage. Plate 17 looks very good in the 1965, but a close examination of my two (admittedly poor) photos above will show that even in this case where I tried to find a great looking plate in the older edition, that the newer edition is better. In the case of other plates (and how I wish I had photographed Plate 32 where the difference is striking) there is far more difference in favor of the 2005 edition. I think that any edition of the BMC catalog is well worth owning for the exhaustive coverage of Roman coinage from 31 BC to AD 238 and for the wealth of historical information that it contains. However, if presented with a choice between the British Museum reprints or the Spink reprints, I believe that the Spink reprints are a better choice for your money and will prove to be more pleasant to use and own.