I received a copy of RIC volume II today... so I fully admit I am still working out how to use it effectively. So apologies if I am missing something really obvious but anyway..... First coin I pick up to "work" with the book is this modest (but awesome!) sestertius of Vespasian: The attribution that came with the coin is: AE Sestertius, Rome Mint, 32mm, 22.53 grams Obverse: IMP CAES VESPASIAN AVG P M TR P P P COS VII, Laureate head of Vespasian left. Reverse: PAX AVGVSTI S C, Pax standing left holding branch and cornucopia. RIC881 Yet in the book the highest RIC# under Vespasian is RIC 818. Is there a supplement I am missing or am I off my rocker? Also a couple of odd tidbits: -The RIC881 shown on Wildwinds is a "right" facing portrait and a Spes reverse? -The legends are obviously not full on my coin - but there is enough to see that they are "inward legends" on both obverse and reverse.. the book states this occurred on coins struck from AD69-73 for Vespasian. Yet COSVII (as in the coin's supplied attribution) = AD76 for Vespasian (however that part of the legend is not visible on my coin to confirm.) I checked ACSearch and there is a coin attributed as RIC 818 that has a left facing portrait/Pax but does not mention the legend information. **Also I am not stating that left facing portraits are rare (I do not have enough experience to state that) however out of the 200 or so examples from ACSearch of Vespasian Sestertius with a Pax reverse only 2 showed up with left facing portraits. Wildwinds also shows an extremely low percentage of coins of Vespasian with a left portrait (like 5%?).. but perhaps those have survived in large numbers? Are the left facing portraits rare? Anyway - looking for some help with this coin. Thanks!
Did you get the latest edition of RIC? 2007 printing. Second fully revised edition. Mine indeed does show RIC 881 as your coin facing left, rated (R)Rare. The right facing sestertius 880 is rated (C) Common. Many sites use the old references, hence the confusion. My guess is you're using the old RIC
True, and some books for some collecting areas have very short print runs. This will always keep the prices of specialty texts high. Sometimes I try to pick up used volumes when I can find them. There is one volume I would like but I refuse to pay 300.00 for it. It is unfortunate because one of my coins is a plate coin in the volume.
Yes it is a difficult situation for the author, publisher, retailer (if there is one) and the potential customer. With short runs they need to cover costs and make some sort of profit - the audience is limited. However the result is that knowledge is not easily obtainable by the general public (if they come to have such an interest). This is really not good for anyone. If it wasn't for the internet and the good people here I do not think I would be able to pursue this hobby in my small way.
They are available at reasonable prices if you dig for them https://www.vcoins.com/en/stores/ch..._the_flavians_new_edition/107394/Default.aspx I've found it invaluable and refer to it almost every day.
For the Flavian coinage I won't go so far to say the old RIC II is useless, but the new updated volume effectively replaces it. I haven't picked up my old outdated RIC II in many years, however, my 1966 reprint of BMCRE II is in hand almost daily ... so not all older references are equal. BTW, the attribution for your coin looks correct.
Other than dealers, rather few of us really 'need' complete sets of RIC must most of us specialize in such a way that a few volumes would be nice. I really regret that the authors chose to use the same name and change the numbers but the other choice would result in coins added to the new addition having numbers like 1234h because they added several coins between 1234 and 1235. I never bought the first three volume of RIC because I had the period covered by BMCRE and did not collect earlier coins enough to justify both. Old books do not lose their value just because there is a new edition but several of the RIC volumes are far from up to date. RIC IV and BMC V cover Septimius Severus poorly in sections on the Eastern mints but they are what we have at present. RIC V almost seems a joke when you compare it to the online version covering part one. I believe the important lesson here is that we all have to get over this worship of books as being 'complete' and authoritarian. They are tools and filled with great information. I have been considering spending the $80 on the Flavian RIC because I have a little interest in that period. We each have to weigh our decisions according to our interests. Some may collect books but most of us put off a book purchase until we have several coins it covers. Do we spend $80 on the book when we have $80 worth of Flavian coins? $800? $8000???
