Is it all that bad to admit that
RIC is not the reference to use when dealing with coins lacking their
mintmarks and just use
Cohen (16)? I have not seen it but I suspect the new volume of
Sear will have a listing covering this coin leaving
RIC ID's for collectors who buy coins with
mintmarks. We might also note that there have been
additions to the
RIC listed variations of headgear, clothing and poses for horsemen so there will even be
mint state coins that don't really fit. The authors of
RIC volume X recognized that many of their coins were
had to separate so listed the mints together making it easy to see the possibilities. Volume
VIII assumes coins can be identified to
mint from the start. Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses.
