Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 7976383, member: 19463&quot;]Personally, I would prefer people quote a listing they had seen rather than a second hand one.&nbsp; What is wrong with quoting OCRE as a source rather than the RIC number?&nbsp; Most are the same but there are errors.&nbsp; I do not own all the RIC volumes but I do own the ones I quote.&nbsp; RIC is not a unified work in ten volumes but a collection of at least 20 books divided up as the authors chose that vary greatly in quality.&nbsp; OCRE at least is edited in a more consistent manner.&nbsp; I have looked at it very little.&nbsp; Do they just ignore the thousands of coins known but not in RIC?&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>Note: this link shows two coins of which one is correct and one is misread.&nbsp; Nobody is perfect and &#039;authoritative&#039;.&nbsp; There are sources usually trustworthy but none to be worshiped. </p><p><a href="http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.4.ss.633A" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.4.ss.633A" rel="nofollow">http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.4.ss.633A</a></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>There is a good argument for this opinion.&nbsp; I wish Philip had more types. </p><p>[ATTACH=full]1384276[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1384277[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1384278[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1384279[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1384280[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1384281[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I could not agree more.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Those sources derived from sales listings that include numerous sellers with questionable professionalism and include errors. Whirlwinds?[/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