Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Does anyone actually use RIC?
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="Roman Collector, post: 8178942, member: 75937"]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:</p><p><br /></p><p><b>Cohen volumes II (Antoninus Pius) and III (Marcus and Commodus) (available <a href="https://www.virtualcohen.com/home" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.virtualcohen.com/home" rel="nofollow">online</a>), published c. 1860.</b></p><p><br /></p><blockquote><p>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.</p><p><br /></p><p>Disadvantages: Old and out of date; it's in French; contains many errors; arranged alphabetically by reverse legend and separated by person on the obverse, which provides no information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.</p><p><br /></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p><b>RIC volume III, published 1930.</b></p><p><br /></p><blockquote><p>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.</p><p><br /></p><p>Disadvantages: It's old and out of date.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.</p><p><br /></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p><b>Strack volume III, published 1937.</b></p><p><br /></p><blockquote><p>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.</p><p><br /></p><p>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.</p><p><br /></p><p>Why use it? Because of its museum citations and introductory material.</p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p><b>BMCRE volume 4, published 1940.</b></p><p><br /></p><blockquote><p>Advantages: It's based on the largest and most complete museum collection in the world. It's in English. It's available for free <a href="https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.69980/page/n5/mode/2up" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.69980/page/n5/mode/2up" rel="nofollow">online</a>. 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.</p><p><br /></p><p>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.</p><p><br /></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p><b>MIR 18 (Szaivert), published 1989.</b></p><p><br /></p><blockquote><p>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.</p><p><br /></p><p>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 <a href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/learning-to-use-szaivert-mir-18.367021/" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/learning-to-use-szaivert-mir-18.367021/">HARD TO USE</a>. Dealers don't use it to describe the coins in their sales/auction listings.</p><p><br /></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p><b>Sear RCV volume II, published 2002.</b></p><p><br /></p><blockquote><p>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.</p><p><br /></p><p>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.</p><p><br /></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p>[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="Roman Collector, post: 8178942, member: 75937"]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: [B]Cohen volumes II (Antoninus Pius) and III (Marcus and Commodus) (available [URL='https://www.virtualcohen.com/home']online[/URL]), published c. 1860.[/B] [INDENT]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.[/INDENT] [B]RIC volume III, published 1930.[/B] [INDENT]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.[/INDENT] [B]Strack volume III, published 1937.[/B] [INDENT]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.[/INDENT] [B]BMCRE volume 4, published 1940.[/B] [INDENT]Advantages: It's based on the largest and most complete museum collection in the world. It's in English. It's available for free [URL='https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.69980/page/n5/mode/2up']online[/URL]. 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.[/INDENT] [B]MIR 18 (Szaivert), published 1989.[/B] [INDENT]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 [URL='https://www.cointalk.com/threads/learning-to-use-szaivert-mir-18.367021/']HARD TO USE[/URL]. 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.[/INDENT] [B]Sear RCV volume II, published 2002.[/B] [INDENT]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.[/INDENT][/QUOTE]
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
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Does anyone actually use RIC?
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...
