Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;maridvnvm, post: 2755869, member: 31620&quot;]Two lovely coins there Randy and Doug&#039;s coin has a gorgeous portrait.</p><p><br /></p><p>This gets down to the guts of how/why we use RIC.</p><p><br /></p><p>If we look at this series as an example then we have RIC VIII Constantinople 81 and 82 being given separate entries.</p><p><br /></p><p>The primary differentiators between the two are that on RIC 81 the horseman is clutching the neck of the horse and on RIC 82 he is reaching back towards the emperor.</p><p><br /></p><p>Both are know to exist for two different reverse legend breaks RE-P being the most common and R-EP being noted as rarer.</p><p><br /></p><p>For RIC 81 the horseman is described as wearing a Phrygian helmet and is beardless and for RIC 82 the horseman is described as bare-headed and bearded.</p><p><br /></p><p>This all seems very deterministic and probably matched the pattern that the authors saw at the time. There are several exceptions to the horseman though.</p><p><br /></p><p>Dane notes a few clutching (RIC 81) examples which are bare headed and beardless rather then helmeted.</p><p><br /></p><p>Mine is the rarer (R-EP) legend break, but the normal clutching helmeted horseman type.</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10618/RI_170at_img.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> </p><p><br /></p><p>She also notes a few exceptions to RIC 82 which are helmeted and come with or without beards rather than being bare-headed and bearded.</p><p><br /></p><p>Mine is the more common RE-P break but is the helmeted, bearded variety. This is different to Randy&#039;s helmeted, beardless variety above. My coin seems to have the remnants of a centration dimple (doesn&#039;t form part of the mintmark). There is enough detail on the rider&#039;s leg to see his clothing.</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10618/RI_170bj_img.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> </p><p><br /></p><p>Now I didn&#039;t buy these coins because of these minor variations I just bought them because I liked them and they were within my available budget when I saw them. I only noted these details as I got more engaged with the series. Do I really care? Not really. I note the variations and move on. These are likely just the whims and variations of the individual engravers and I suspect there has not been an extensive enough die study performed to gain much further evidence either way. The output of these coins was likely huge and is probably of insufficient interest to a serious numismatists to take it on as a study.</p><p><br /></p><p>These do give an indication that for someone wanting to form an exhaustive set of this series that it would be a major task with lots of variations that are &quot;unpublished&quot;. Whether anyone would care about these &quot;unpublished&quot; variations is yet another thing.</p><p><br /></p><p>Martin[/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