Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 2842959, member: 19463&quot;]My opinion is that RIC V is so out of date and covers so many coins found since publication that you have to ignore some problems and add var. to a lot of your numbers.&nbsp; It seems likely that the editor would have placed your coin in 560 along with the T in field had he seen it.&nbsp; There is an online resource &#039;replacing&#039; part 1 of RIC V.&nbsp; It adds thousands of variations to the printed book.&nbsp; There is no reason to suspect that a review of part 2 would be different. </p><p><br /></p><p>I would LOVE to know what the mint was saying when they made little changes like moving the officina letter.&nbsp; It seems likely that it was a code for a new issue but we don&#039;t know what triggered the need for a new code.&nbsp; I forget the exact reference but I recall there was one RIC V listing that covered over fifty variations and combinations.&nbsp; My personal favorite is the Aurelian RIC 62 which keeps the same number with just an officina number in exergue, adding an officina to XXI or moving the officina and XXI to the fields so they could put a lion in exergue.&nbsp; What does a lion have to do to get a number of his own out of these guys?&nbsp; Somewhere else on CT today someone showed us a coin with a different number because of a difference in legend break point.&nbsp; When you write a book, you can do it your way. </p><p>[ATTACH=full]673084[/ATTACH][/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