Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;rasiel, post: 1670003, member: 15452&quot;]For you Doug there might be nothing, or little, to make it worth your while. I&#039;ve made the case before, and am still of the strong opinion, that RIC is both an excellent resource of Roman coinage in general and a poor everyday tool for the general collector or cataloguer. It is the shortcomings of the second part, and not the first, that I&#039;m working to address in the ERIC series. Mattingly&#039;s fateful choice of mapping out a catalogue chronologically - to be later followed by Carson and Kent - makes total sense in conveying an understanding of the progression of the various issues for each of the emperors while at the same time crippling its use as a reference tool. Therefore, you being a seasoned numismatist, will have a different priority than someone whose concern is looking up a coin&#039;s stats quickly. </p><p><br /></p><p>In an admittedly biased comparison we find that on any given coin entry RIC will give you broadly the same information as ERIC would:</p><p><br /></p><p>- The catalog number</p><p>- The denomination</p><p>- Obverse legend &amp; description</p><p>- Reverse legend &amp; description</p><p>- Rarity</p><p>- Approximate date of minting</p><p>- Reference</p><p><br /></p><p>ERIC II already gives all of the above except for rarity and III plans to add rarity as well as market pricing in a much more concise, cheaper and colorful package - plus add hundreds of previously unrecorded variants. What it is <i>not </i>being planned on is the addition of a hundred-or-three pages worth of economic and military policy or metallurgical analyses or speculating on whatever religious issue of the day may have caused the use of this or that reverse type. First, as I&#039;ve already admitted before, I&#039;m not a scholar on these subjects so it would be difficult and quite un-fun for me to delve in too deeply along those lines, at least as of today. Secondly, I just don&#039;t think it really <i>belongs </i>in a reference. When you use a dictionary to look up the word &#039;virus&#039; you&#039;re expecting a definition and maybe an etymology and how to pluralize it. You&#039;re not expecting to be drowned in a discourse on recombinant DNA or the nature of chemical bonding receptor sites (however interesting those subjects may be). I guess we&#039;ll just have to agree to disagree on what our vision of the right reference should look like. </p><p><br /></p><p>Also, in your case and in others, you already OWN reference books but what of the of the newcomer to the hobby - serious or casual - who is looking to add a reference book? Is a $1,300 RIC set in your opinion the best option in every case? When people ask me what book should they get to start into coins I usually give them a couple of options. They can get a good feel of Roman coins for free with the first ERIC, Wayne Sayles&#039;s books for those who want to get a good intro into collecting ancient coins, Aorta for those who want to jump in both feet but are on a budget and, yes, RIC if you want the all-out university course treatment on Roman coinage.</p><p><br /></p><p>As for the other question, the printer would simply divide the book in three sections and bind them separately then give me a quote on the total number of sets all of which would be printed at the same time as one project (no saying give me more vols1, less 3&#039;s). I would then offer the sets for sale all together and then rip into the boxes and separate other sets to sell individually. Yes, at the end I&#039;ll probably end up with a bunch of byzantine volumes nobody wants... just put &#039;em up on ebay for $1 each until they&#039;re cleared out I guess.</p><p><br /></p><p>Ras[/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