Does anyone actually use RIC?

Discussion in 'Ancient Coins' started by savitale, Jan 17, 2022.

  1. Factor

    Factor Well-Known Member

    I use primarily RIC X, sometimes RIC IX as well. The other volumes I didn't open for years, online data is sufficient for my needs.
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Theoderic

    Theoderic Active Member

    As a short answer, yes, I use RIC regularly. However, I only own the most recent publications from the 1980s onward: I (2nd edition), II.1 (Flavians), II.3 (Hadrian), VIII, and X. When needing references to the others I use whatever online resource I can access. I just wish they would hurry up with revisions to the other volumes, but unfortunately, I think I'll be dead before they ever fully update the series.
     
    sand, Factor and DonnaML like this.
  4. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member

    Just an opinion: Those interested in this subject would be better advised to avoid those books and read Martin's posts on Coin Talk, Barry Murphy's old Septimius pages and, perhaps, the recently uploaded coins from the British Museum collection. I say 'perhaps' because the BM chose to use a format that makes it very hard to use but they have some nice coins not as well presented as the other references mentioned.

    Regarding another controversial thread: There is a major difference between a 'serious' resource and one that demands to be take too seriously. I am an amateur. That word means that I love my subject enough to do/study/post without considering whether I can make a buck on the process or whether the coins involved have a high enough market value to be worth my time. Read everyone; believe only after critical evaluation. For the Eastern Severans, the best paper resource is a stack of old sale catalogs and a thin pamphlet by Roger Bickford-Smith whose untimely death prevented what would have been quite some book had he been allowed to work these last 25 years.

    Does anyone have an opinion on errors I made in my post here?
    https://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/mintalex.html

    Has anyone done anything remotely professional regarding relative issue dates or mint details of this series?
     
  5. Orfew

    Orfew Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus

    My Flavian collection would not be the same without RIC. I always check a seller's attributions before buying. I have seen very rare coins described as common by those who have copied their attributions from someone else. I have also seen the opposite situation where common coins are described as rare ones. The Flavian volume has paid for itself many times over.
     
    Limes, sand, Jay GT4 and 1 other person like this.
  6. sand

    sand Well-Known Member

    I don't have any of the RIC volumes. I use other coin books, and ACsearch, and Wildwinds, etc, to check RIC numbers on coin attributions. Even though, there may be some errors, in some of those sources.
    Usually, when I try to check a Roman Imperial coin attribution, I try to find the Sear number, if the coin is in one of my Sear books. But, I don't have all of the Sear Roman Imperial coin books.
    There's 1 RIC volume, that I've been thinking about buying. But, the cheapest copy I've seen, costs $260 including shipping. I've spent thousands of dollars on coin books, but I've never spent more than $150 for a single coin book. I'm hesitant to spend so much money, for a single coin book. But, I may eventually buy the volume, if I cut down on my coin spending, and/or if I see a cheaper copy for sale.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2022
    DonnaML likes this.
  7. Limes

    Limes Well-Known Member

    thanks for the advice! It just ordered my first copy of Roman Imperial Coinage, being Vol. 1: From 31 BC to AD 69, reprinted in 1999. Estimate delivery date? ... April 19th! :)

    Since I find the Julio-Claudio dynasty very interesting and quite a few of my coins are from that era, I thought this volume may be most fitting and a good first starting point. I'm curious about the book.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2022
  8. DonnaML

    DonnaML Well-Known Member

    I agree that OCRE has its problems, and is precisely as outdated as the particular volumes of RIC on which it's based -- with no attempt made to update the database to incorporate discoveries made since the underlying original volumes of RIC were published (except, of course, where the RIC volume has itself been updated). However, I do find that OCRE is useful nonetheless for at least one purpose, for those of us who don't own the RIC volumes: when a particular general type has a number of variations or subtypes (particularly in the obverse portrait), to which RIC has assigned different catalog numbers, the written description in OCRE of each variation or subtype, and the number assigned to it by RIC, do make it possible to find the correct catalog number for any given specimen. For example, when I recently purchased my new Hadrian Africa Travel Series denarius, I learned from OCRE that the new edition of RIC II.3 assigns seven different numbers to the type (1494-1500), one for each of the seven different obverse variations. (The old 1926 edition of RIC II, I believe, assigned only one number to the type, RIC 299.)

    OCRE describes the seven obverse variations as follows (see http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.2_3(2).hdn.1494-1500):

    Obverse
    Legend: HADRIANVS AVG COS III P P
    Portrait: Hadrian
    Type: Head of Hadrian, laureate, right | Head of Hadrian, right | Head of Hadrian, laureate, left | Head of Hadrian, left | Bust of Hadrian, bare chest, traces of drapery on far shoulder usually visible, right | Bust of Hadrian, laureate, draped, right, viewed from rear or side | Bust of Hadrian, draped, right, viewed from rear or side.

    Thus, I was able to learn from OCRE that my obverse subtype (bare head left) is RIC II.3 Hadrian 1497.

    Like @maridvnvm, however, I've learned to ignore the photographic examples illustrating each variant or subtype, both in this case and generally. Perhaps especially for coins in museum collections, the photos' attributions to particular variants are wrong as often as they're right. Often, they appear as random as throwing a deck of cards in the air and letting them fall where they may. It's not clear to me whether the attributions (and mistakes) are being made by the museums, by the editors of OCRE, or both. At least for photos in the OCRE versions of the more recently updated volumes of RIC, it would seem more likely that the responsibility lies with OCRE: how would the museums have known to attribute coins to new RIC numbers in volumes that were updated long after those museums cataloged their collections?
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2022
    David Atherton likes this.
  9. Roman Collector

    Roman Collector Well-Known Member

    For Antonine coins, we essentially have six choices. You'll notice I've left out Van Meter and Vagi; this is intentional, because they are too incomplete to be useful as a catalog. By year of publication (from oldest to newest), we have:

    Cohen volumes II (Antoninus Pius) and III (Marcus and Commodus) (available online), published c. 1860.

    Advantages: available online; it's in French; arranged alphabetically by reverse legend, which makes finding a coin easy; cites museum collections whenever possible. It doesn't separate the listings by denomination; rather, it lists all denominations of a reverse type together.

    Disadvantages: Old and out of date; it's in French; contains many errors; arranged alphabetically by reverse legend and separated by person on the obverse, which provides no information whatsoever about historical context; dealers don't usually use this catalog when citing references for their coins.

    Why use it? Cohen was a ground-breaking numismatist and when doing in-depth research on Roman imperial coins, his interpretations of the iconography of the coins can be insightful. It serves as an inventory of the French national collection.​

    RIC volume III, published 1930.

    Advantages: It's in English; it's widely used and not too hard to obtain (though it is > $100); it's fairly complete; its introductory material is insightful if used cautiously; it's arranged using a mixture of chronological and alphabetical systems and it's fairly easy to find any particular coin. It cross-references Cohen.

    Disadvantages: It's old and out of date. It's in English. It propagates errors by citing Cohen and auction listings uncritically. It includes coins rumored to exist but which don't really (typically incorrectly described by earlier resources, such as Wiczay). It separates coins by denominations and by person on the obverse, obscuring the historical context in which they were issued.

    Why use it? Because everybody does and you'll need to use it to confirm dealers' listings and look up coins mentioned in the numismatic literature.​

    Strack volume III, published 1937.

    Advantages: It's in German. It's quite complete and includes varieties that are omitted by Cohen and RIC. It cites MULTIPLE examples from the museums of Europe. Its introductory material is insightful and Strack's dating of the undated coins turns out to have been more accurate than RIC's in light of the recent work of Beckmann.

    Disadvantages: It only includes the coins under Antoninus Pius; Strack died before he could publish his work on the middle and late Antonines. It's in German. It's next to impossible to find and if you do find one, you'll have to pay nearly $1000 for it; I have to go to a numismatic library in order to look at it. It's old. It separates coins by metal, obscuring the historical context in which they were issued.

    Why use it? Because of its museum citations and introductory material.​

    BMCRE volume 4, published 1940.

    Advantages: It's based on the largest and most complete museum collection in the world. It's in English. It's available for free online. It notes every coin in the collection, even "duplicates," and notes differences in die-axis, breaks in the inscriptions, hairstyles, and so forth. It also includes coins not in the British Museum collection but noted in other references, but cited critically, noting whether the existence of the coins is verified or dubious. It's quite complete. Its introductory material is insightful if used cautiously. It's arranged using a mixture of chronological and alphabetical systems and it's fairly easy to find any particular coin, and its indices make it even easier. It cross-references Cohen and occasionally Strack.

    Disadvantages: Not many dealers use it as the basis of their catalog descriptions. It's in English. It separates coins by denominations and figure on the obverse, obscuring the historical context in which they were issued. Its introductory material is inaccurate when it comes to assigning dates to the undated coinage.

    Why use it? It's the most complete, accurate easy-to-use, one-volume reference in the English language to the Antonine coins. It's my personal favorite and I use my print copy several times a week.​

    MIR 18 (Szaivert), published 1989.

    Advantages: It does not separate coins by metal or denomination or by person on the obverse; rather, it lists all the coins in chronological order (except the undated empress coinage is separated from the dated coins of the men); this preserves the historical context in which they were issued. It's quite complete and examples are cited from museum collections and auction listings, with cross-references to RIC. Its listing of bust varieties is quite complete and it's very rare to find coin that is unlisted. For the coins of the empresses, it attempts to provide a chronology for their issue (sometimes proven wrong by Beckmann's die-linkage study) and it discusses the hairstyles of the various empresses and their role in establishing chronology (it's not actually as straightforward as Szaivert makes it out to be). It's in German.

    Disadvantages: It only lists the coins under Marcus Aurelius, Lucius Verus, and Commodus (the middle and late Antonine period). It's not easy to come by and even a dog-eared, paperback copy will set you back three figures. Next to no illustrations. It's in German. It's HARD TO USE. Dealers don't use it to describe the coins in their sales/auction listings.

    Why use it? It provides an overview of the entire coinage issued simultaneously in any given emission/year, without separating out the coins by denomination or person on the coin, as does RIC and BMCRE. Moreover, the coins of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus or Commodus are listed on facing pages and given the same numbers for the same reverse types. MIR acknowledges that just because an aureus and sestertius are in different trays in the British Museum doesn't mean their catalog listings should be separated by a hundred pages in a book.​

    Sear RCV volume II, published 2002.

    Advantages: It has listings for Nerva through Severus Alexander all in one convenient, easy to use volume. It's in English. It's illustrated with photos between the listings, so you don't have to go to some plate at the end of the book. It has cross references to BMC, Cohen, Hill, and MIR. It's astonishingly complete for a work of its scope and even includes the Alexandrian coins. Its introductory material is insightful and contains educational material about the whole of Roman numismatics; ALL collectors would benefit from studying its introductory material in detail. It's arranged using a mixture of chronological and alphabetical systems and it's fairly easy to find any particular coin.

    Disadvantages: It's not as complete as RIC or BMCRE. It separates coins by denominations and figure on the obverse, obscuring the historical context in which they were issued. It illustrates perhaps only 20% of the coins. When dealing with the undated coinage (primarily of the empresses), its dates are either inaccurate or so vague as to be useless. Doesn't go into detail about bust types, hairstyles, and such information a specialist might deem important. It's in English. It isn't used all that much by dealers in their sales/auction listings.

    Why use it? It's an excellent one-volume reference for coins of the adoptive emperors through the Severan period. It's easily obtained. The introductory material is superb, and it's a very good value for the money.​
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2022
    Curtis, mikebell, Limes and 3 others like this.
  10. DonnaML

    DonnaML Well-Known Member

    Great summary; thanks. I think that if one collects primarily denarii and not so much bronze coins, one should definitely consider Roman Silver Coins [RSC] Vol. II, Tiberius to Commodus (Seaby, 3d ed. 1979). The numbering system is based on Cohen (just as the numbering system in RSC I for Roman Republican coins is based on Babelon), so for catalogs referencing Cohen numbers that makes it easy to find particular coins. As does the fact that the coins are arranged alphabetically by reverse inscription, and by design within the various inscriptions. Also, it's much more comprehensive in listing every conceivable variation of each coin (with respect to obverse portraits, legends, etc.) than either RIC or RCV. (I find that Sear RCV II is considerably less comprehensive than the later, post-284 AD volumes: it's missing a substantial percentage of the coins of Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, etc.)

    Plus, individual volumes of RSC are much less expensive than volumes of RIC or RCV: there are several copies for sale on Amazon for less than $30. But make sure you're buying the 3rd edition, because copies of the first two are also still floating around on the Internet.
     
    Broucheion, sand and Roman Collector like this.
  11. johnmilton

    johnmilton Well-Known Member

    Given the fact that I am a generalist, a well versed dealer advised me that I didn't really need RIC. I have the five Sear books, and I go to Wildwinds regularly.

    A lot of these coins seem to be like Sheldon large cent varieties. There are minor positions for certain letters and the like which create minor varieties that would be of interest only to those who are totally emersed in the coins of a certain era. The history interests me far more than the minor die varieties.

    The one thing I will say about the 5th volume of the Sear books is that it is harder to use than the first four. There are fewer photographs and more varieties.
     
    sand, DonnaML and Roman Collector like this.
  12. DonnaML

    DonnaML Well-Known Member

    In some ways it's good that RCV V has more varieties, including what seems like a separate entry for each type for each mint. Much more comprehensive than some of the earlier volumes, and I find that I don't necessarily need photos if all the mint marks and abbreviations are clearly spelled out.

    Also, I find that comprehensive reference works for ancients, like RSC, don't really concern themselves with the trivia of letter positions or legend breaks or the like. For example, the RSC chapter for Trajan categorizes each coin by, among other things, one of 15 different capital letters (A-O) for the 15 different obverse legends used, and one of 16 lower case letters or letter combinations for differences in the obverse portraits (left vs. right, barehead vs laureate, draped vs. draped on one shoulder vs. draped & cuirassed vs. aegis, seen from front vs. rear, etc., etc.)
     
    Roman Collector likes this.
  13. savitale

    savitale Well-Known Member

    Seems like there are quite a number of folks who use RIC, and about an equal number who prefer other resources. I really appreciate all the perspectives.
     
    sand likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page