RIC II 101, 102 & 104 - why do the coins not match the RIC descriptions?

I've been looking at the coins of Titus that celebrate Agricola's victory at the River Tay and (almost) everyone seems to assign them to RIC II 101, 102 or 104. For example:

CNG Auction 318 Lot 644 - RIC II 101
Roma Numismatics XVIII Lot 1124 - RIC 102
Wildwinds - RIC 102
CNG 291 Lot 383 - RIC 102
CNG 382 - Lot 391 - RIC 102
CNG 225 Lot 337 - RIC 102
This thread on CoinTalk - RIC 104 (R), RIC 102 (C)
Savoca Auction 7 lot 463 - RIC 102 (C)
Ira & Larry Goldberg Auction 69 Lot 3519 - RIC 102
Heritage Auctions Auction 3003 Lot 20537 - RIC 206(?) and 102
Künker Auction 19 Lot 410 - RIC II 102
Gemini Auction VII Lot 752 - RIC 102 (C)​

The problem is that RIC II itself defines these types as 21a and b, with 101, 102 and 104 being something completely different:

101: Sestertius. S.C. Titus in quadriga r.
102: Sestertius. S.C. Hexastyle temple of Jupiter
104: Sestertius. S.C. Titus on horseback l., receiving palladium from Roma. standing r., r. foot on globe​

CNG seem to get it right once:

CNG Triton VII Lot 898 - RIC II 21a​

Am I misreading RIC here (I don't really collect Roman coins so I'm not that familiar with RIC), or are all these auction houses just copying and pasting the same incorrect references?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

What you are missing is that the examples you give are all using the new RIC II Part 1 by Carradice and Buttrey (2007). The other RIC numbers you give are from the old RIC.

 

btw here is an example you do not see everyday. It is a left facing bust for Titus and is RIC 103.

Titus, 79 - 81 n. Chr. Denar (2.96g). 80 n. Chr. Mzst. Rom.
Obv.: IMP TITVS CAES VESPASIAN AVG P M, Kopf mit Lorbeerkranz n. l.
Rev.: TR P IX IMP XV COS VIII P P, zwei Gefangene sitzen Rücken an Rücken an einem Tropaeum.
RIC 103 (R2) RSC 307. Not in RIC plates.
Ex Sammlung Shlomo Moussaieff, London, 1948 - 2000.
Condition: Dunkle Tönung, partiell Auflagen, ss
Ex: Gorny und Mosch e-auction 263 - 07.03.2019 10: Lot 3615

 

Thanks @Orfew. I knew there was a new version out but I didn't realise they had changed the numbers.