Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 2548410, member: 19463&quot;]I have often said here that people who want a catalog number should buy the catalog but we regularly get requests from beginners who only want a catalog number and care little about the factors that make it different from another number.&nbsp; We continue to honor their requests.&nbsp; Should we?</p><p><br /></p><p>I have severe issues with book publishers who change numbering systems with a new edition of a book without changing the name of the book so all my RIC numbers from volume 2 became incorrect overnight.&nbsp; Sear was bad with that when he had one volume books but when he came out with the Millennium edition we started referring to numbers as Millennium Sear (MS?) rather than just Sear.&nbsp; That was fine.&nbsp; Not long ago we found an example of a coin in Sear Byzantine that was one number different in the newer edition than it was in the previous one.&nbsp; Get real, Sear.&nbsp; Even if we all buy every edition of every book, we don&#039;t need questions whether this is cataloged in the new one, the older one or the original one.&nbsp; I wish they would publish a new code when they feel the need to start over with numbers.&nbsp; Am I asking for Millennium RIC for the new Vol. 2?&nbsp; They can come up with a better name.&nbsp; RIC is bad enough with the repeating numbers (Septimius Severus has a #1 for his early coins and those when he was joined by one or both sons - Later volumes have a #1 for each mint so it is necessary to say something like &quot;RIC123 page 456 volume VIII).&nbsp; I look up and read listings on my coins but I have real doubts about the value of recording numbers that may not last past the end of the year.&nbsp; Is there a better way? IDK![/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