RIC VIII 113 what does this refer to.

Discussion in 'Ancient Coins' started by BaconSlayer, Feb 22, 2015.

  1. BaconSlayer

    BaconSlayer Active Member

    Hello, just picked up my 3rd ancient at my favorite Honey Hole. Described as:

    Roman Empire. Constantius II. A.D. 337-361. AE 4. 2.205 grams.
    Antioch A.D. 347-8. Obv. D. N. CONSTAN-TIVS P. F. AVG. Head,
    pearl-diademed, r. Rv. VOT/XX/MVLT/XXX; legend within wreath; in
    exergue, SMANA. RIC VIII, 113.

    I Have figured out most of the meanings except for the RIC VIII, 113. What does this refer to a book/author similar to a VAM designation?

    Thanks!
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2015
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Kentucky

    Kentucky Supporter! Supporter

    I'm sure some of the ancient collectors (did that come out right?) on here will know, and I would like to know too.
     
  4. John Anthony

    John Anthony Ultracrepidarian

    RIC is Roman Imperial Coinage, a 10 volume reference set. Your coin is cataloged in volume VIII as Antioch 113. (SMANA is an Antioch mint mark.)
     
  5. maridvnvm

    maridvnvm Well-Known Member

    RIC VIII - Roman Imperial Coinage, Volume VIII

    Carson, Sutherland and Kent. The Roman Imperial Coinage, Vol VIII, The Family of Constantine I, A.D. 337 - 364. (Spink & Son, London, 1981)
     
  6. John Anthony

    John Anthony Ultracrepidarian

    I happen to have one from the Cyzicus mint...

    constantiusvot.jpg
     
    chrsmat71 likes this.
  7. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    Baconslayer, the RIC 10 volume set is considered to be the most authoritative reference on Roman Imperial coins. That is why it is used frequently. Unfortunately, Vol VIII covering the family of Constantine is one of the most expensive volumes, (probably due to the vast quantities of these coins coming on the market the last decade).
     
  8. maridvnvm

    maridvnvm Well-Known Member

    Some would argue that BMCRE (Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum) is more thorough for several periods. Personally I don't value the contents of RIC Vol V Pt 2 at all as it is largely incomplete and inaccurate for most of the emperors covered.
     
  9. BaconSlayer

    BaconSlayer Active Member

    Good info, thanks all!
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page