Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 3123892, member: 19463&quot;]Excellent.&nbsp; Not all of us are interested enough to go so far in the ID.&nbsp; There are specialists who go much further.&nbsp; I will present you a coin photo that I will claim to be Siscia RIC VII 202,E.&nbsp; Do you agree? Why or why not?</p><p>[ATTACH=full]795514[/ATTACH]</p><p>How many differences can you see?&nbsp; Are they important to you now or do you think they might become important later?&nbsp; There is a long footnote to your coin 200 starting at the bottom of page 449 that I would bet 99% of RIC users have no intention of reading that explains some things about the coin including the fact that the author did not consider them when making the list.&nbsp; The point is that we each have a cool coin in less than pristine condition.&nbsp; Our coins differ in some ways and are alike in others.&nbsp; RIC is a very interesting book but most people only want it for the numbers and choose to lift them from secondary sources rather than buying, heaven forbid - reading, the book itself.&nbsp; At your stage of the game, you probably should not care about that footnote but I would like you to know that things like it exist not only for these coins but for many other coins we collect.&nbsp; No one has studied all of this material to the point they don&#039;t have to look it up.&nbsp; If you start studying now, you will know everything about the time you are as old as these coins.&nbsp; Maybe. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie56" alt=":inpain:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>The point is that you and only you will determine just what part of this whole is important to you and what part is not.&nbsp; I suggest you study the part that is fun and leave the rest for later (2019 or the 22nd century?).&nbsp; I applaud the success you had with this ID.&nbsp; Keep up the good work.&nbsp; Keep it FUN!</p><p><br /></p><p>Trivia question more suitable for those who have been collecting longer:</p><p>We have seen RIC 200 and RIC 202 here.&nbsp; RIC 201 is also dated by RIC to 226-227 AD but is listed as more rare than either of our coins.&nbsp; Without looking up to see what makes a 201 a 201 but knowing what you know about the history of this period, who can offer a reasonable guess as to why it is less common?&nbsp; I have an answer I consider reasonable.&nbsp; I am not a specialist in these coins and learned a lot from reading that footnote to coin 200.&nbsp; Such things are part of my FUN with my hobby even though I am not a follower of Constaninian coins.&nbsp; Your hobby may differ. If anyone here has a picture of a 201 and would care to offer what they consider to be a reasonable guess or obvious certainty to this question, feel free.&nbsp; There is FUN available to everyone. If nothing else, you can make fun of my fun.&nbsp; I might add that you can have fun with coins you don&#039;t own as well as those you do.&nbsp; Practice IDing other coins you see on CT and elsewhere.[/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