"not in RIC"

Here is an AE2 of the roman empress Aelia Flaccilla (wife of Theodosius who reigned 379-395).


AEL FLAC-CILLA AVG
SALVS REI-PVBLICAE
empress standing, head right, with arms across chest.
<dot>SMHA [sacra moneta Heraclea, officina A]
with cross in right field

It is 24-23 mm, 4.54 grams, with 12:00 die axis. It is close to RIC IX Heraclea 25, but lacks the star in the left field that RIC 25 has. So, technically, it is "not in RIC". I have seen another one, so it is not unique and I am not claiming it is rare or valuable.

For more late Roman AE, see
http://esty.ancients.info/ricix/index.html
where this type is "type 23".

Do you have any Roman coins to show us that are "not in RIC"?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

This is probably my favourite "not in RIC" I have.


Domitian
AR Denarius
Rome mint, 88-89 AD
RIC 651A, BMC -, RSC -
Obv: IMP CAES DOMIT AVG GERM P M TR P VIII; Head of Domitian, laureate, bearded, r.
Rev: IMP XV COS XIIII CENS P P P; Minerva stg. l., with thunderbolt and spear; shield at her l. side (M3)

During 88-89 Domitian's imperial salutations were coming fast and furious due to wars being fought against both the Chatti and the Dacians. As a result, the honours piled up rather quickly. The different issues during the time period are divided up by imperial acclamations. Some issues are rather small, depending how long it was before word reached the mint of a new salutation. It was previously thought when Domitian became TR P VIII in mid September he was at IMP XVI, however, with this new denarius we now know he was still IMP XV. This realisation bumps the number of issues for 88-89 from 6 to 7, this coin being part of the new first issue now dated TR P VIII IMP XV. The issue had to be quite minuscule (T.V. Buttrey joked perhaps struck for only 30 minutes until news of IMP XVI arrived), only this one Minerva type has surfaced, doubtless the other three standard Minerva types were struck alongside but have yet to be recorded. Buttrey has assigned this coin 651A in the upcoming RIC II.2 addenda.

 

My favorite 'not in RIC' requires two coins. BMC and RIC (427A) list a coin from the British Museum collection as VICTOR IVST AVG but their example is off center losing the end of the legend so they were guessing at the AVG part. My coin is a die duplicate (both sides) of theirs but has the end of the legend reading AVS. The coin is mislisted in RIC.

There are other dies reading AVG as listed but the BM coin is not one of them. This one is listed but by accident since the coin on which the listing was based read AVS.

 

Ahahah => yah, the only reason I remember that this one is "not in RIC" is because I posted it for a different reason ... man, I love the flower-pot!!

Gordian III, Cappadocia, Caesarea-Eusebia AE21
238-244 AD
Dated RY 4 (AD 240/1)
Diameter: AE21
Weight: 8.24 g
Obverse: AV K M ANT ΓOPΔIANOC, laureate head right
Reverse: MHT PO KAI B N, calathus containing five grain ears
Reference: Sydenham, Caesarea; SNG Hunterian; SNG von Aulock; SNG Righetti; Lindgren & Kovacs; Lindgren III; MPR



=> the awesome part about me is => you're gonna find out that I'm wrong (gawd, my Dad told me that I'd never amount to nuthin')

 

Nice detective work!

 

Cool stuff.

Here is my unlisted.


Volusian (251 - 253 A.D.)
AR Antoninianus
O: IMP C C VIB VOLVSIANVS AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right.
R: ROMAE AETERNAE AVG, Roma seated left with Victory & spear, shield at side, ui in ex.
Antioch Mint
4g
20mm

 

So a question - does "not in RIC" necessarily equate with "rare"? And does "rare" necessarily equate with "valuable"?

 

It usually means it's a coin that wasn't known when RIC was published, but that doesn't always mean it's rare or valuable or even unknown since publishing. Thanks to the web and more collectors, many coins are being "found" not in RIC.

If many people wanted the coin or there was a great demand, sure it's valuable but if no one is looking or specializing in it, then its only worth what the next owner who doesn't care about RIC will pay.

I doubt many would want my Volusian, he isnt any one special, reverse is very boring, and the jet black tone is a turn off to many.

 

I read somewhere that rarity is important when a coin is required to complete a popular series. One problem with the term "rare" is that everybody uses it on eBay.
I'm selling something that actually is rare on eBay atm - a provincial Aemilian - but nobody will believe me.

 

This coin is 'Not in RIC'

It's a Commemorative Victory on Prow type with a plume on the helmet, similar to the Vrbs Roma issues.

So far I have seen them only from Constantinople and Cyzicus mints, although last time I checked there was one shown in Not in RIC from Thessalonica.

 

Not being listed in a book can hurt a value since demand requires people know something exists. Several of us have coins more rare than EID MAR denarii (population 100?) when it comes to census but no one wants ours and everyone wants the murder coin. Nobody (except a few specialists) wants another ugly but rare/unique Severus.

Coins like 'any' Aemelian are more popular than greater rarities from more common rulers since there are so many 'one per emperor' collectors. They don't have to be interesting or beautiful to punch your ticket for yet another ruler. I paid twice as much for one of the coins below as for the other. That means the seller considered the chance of finding a sale for an Aemelian twice as good as for another Volusian. Would as many want this same coin in Gordian III?

Volusian, Antioch, Pisidia

Aemelian, same city


Would these be more popular if the die cutters could spell?

 

This series is listed as having a star in the left reverse field (93) or after the mint mark (94). This coin has neither.



Constantius II, AD 337-361
AE3, 2.3g, 19mm, 6h; Constantinople mint, third group, AD 348-351.
Obv.: DN CONSTAN-TIVS PF AVG; Pearl-diademed, draped, and cuirassed bust right.
Rev.: FEL TEMP REPARATIO; Phoenix, radiate, standing right on globe // CONSA
Reference: RIC VIII Constantinople 93 or 94 var. (no star in mint mark or field), p. 454.

 

Wow, we're a bunch of losers ... in this particular case, the biggest loser is the guy that knows he has the most non RIC coins

=> go outside and throw a ball around once in a while!!



... I'm just sayin'

 

That's exactly what my mother used to say to me when I was a kid. "Get your nose out of that book and go play with the other kids in the neighborhood!" I hated those little snot-nosed urchins.

 

Hey, throw the ball to JA ... Jangle Arms ... he won't catch it!!

=> JA-JA-JA-JA ... go away, JA

Hey => now I remember you!!

 

uhhh? ... sorry, I forgot that this was Warren's thread

I'll quit now, before you yell at me ... sorry Mr. Esty

 

doucet, is your CONSTANTINOPOLI coin not RIC Constantinople 63, page 579, officina IA?

 

As you know, RIC stands for "Roman Imperial Coinage" so provincials with Greek legends do not count as "Not in RIC."

 

Someone mentioned rarity and value. I wrote an article on that in 2001 and I still stand by those thoughts. Here it is on the web:

http://esty.ancients.info/numis/rarity.html

 

It is. I went looking for it as well, and I think the confusion may be as to which volume it's in, which is VII, rather than VIII. The varieties in VIII have GE reverse.