Actually
BMC records all known
types and variants not in the
collection too, and being published in general a little later than the corresponding parts of RIC, it is MORE not less
complete than RIC.
As far as it goes (up to 238 AD),
BMC is immensely superior to the corresponding RIC volumes, because (1) based on an actual
collection, one of the most
complete in existence, whereas early RIC is essentially a chronological rearrangement of
Cohen, so dependent on SOMEONE ELSE'S descriptions of the actual coins. Early RIC usually cites, as authority, merely the
Cohen number, not even specifying where
Cohen saw the coin.
BMC numbers, in contrast, correspond to actual coins in the
collection, so immediately have a much greater reliability; and quotations of
Cohen for
types not in BM usually state Cohen's source too.
(2) RIC has selected illustrations only;
BMC almost always illustrates at least the
reverse of every coin
type present in the BM
collection, plus a few from other
collections. If you have doubts about the details or authenticity of a certain
type,
BMC usually illustrates it, while RIC usually does not! Since the BM plates illustrate every common
type that occurs plus a
good selection of the rarer
types, they are also wonderfully useful as an
attribution tool.
(3) Much fuller historical introductions and bibliographies in
BMC than RIC.