RIC v.s. VM

[jslade]

I was wondering about the validity of using refferences such as Van Meter instead of RIC numbers. I already have and use the VM book but I am worried that if I use this refference on the boards nobody will know what I'm talking about. Is there some simple way to translate from one attribution format to another? I'm just starting to get comfortable using VM but I would like to know if I am missing out on a complete attribution since it doesn't go into the details of the mintmark, armor, diadem, etc.? Any thoughts?

Jeremiah

[Varangian]

Any reference that has your coin listed is a valid one.  Of course, the more detailed the reference, the more precise your ID.  But you won't find every coin in any single reference, so use what you've got.  I have several coins that are not in RIC, but are listed in other references, so I use what's out there for attribution.

[Rugser]

Hi Geremia 
The RIC is universally known as the most complete catalog for the Roman coins. 
VM is known only in the Anglo-Saxon world. 

Regards

ser

[Jochen]

Hi Jeremiah!

VM is a nice book for newbies and for a quick overview. It has a lot of information you don't find in RIC or other great catalogues. But it doesn't list every coin and every mintmark or officina. If you are satisfied with the name of the emperor and the depicted goddess f.e. it's ok. But if you want to go deeper you need a more complete book. For the Roman Imperial coins it is the RIC or the BMCRE. For special emperors it is Goebl or the new Estiot (Aurelian). I think the more literature you have the more fun you will have with your collection!

Best regards

[jbaran]

Hi Jeremiah.  As Varangian says, VM is a valid reference.  It crams a lot of information into an inexpensive reference work.  RIC is 10 volumes and a complete set costs $1000 or more.  

VM wont be a problem on the boards...not everyone here has it, but there are enough.  Those that dont have it will just give you a RIC reference if they can.  The more references you have for a given coin the better...IMHO.

[MCarvalho]

VM is known only in the Anglo-Saxon world

In fact VM is popular here in Portugal, I belive in Spain and France is getting some attention also.

However, as Jochen said, the Handbook is just a very light catolog, you don't find there mint marks, and even some common types are missing (I'm just thinking in the Claudius Gothicus's PROVIDENT AVG...).

There is some other catalog that I like very much (and is very inexpensive) and use a lot: Late Roman Bronze Coinage (LRBC). At the begging here in the FORVM, I was a little surprise that almost none of the members use LRBC references.

Anyone knows why LRBC is not so popular as I suppose it was in the Anglo-Saxon world?

[Steve Minnoch]

I guess LRBC suffers for one because it is not "the standard" and that it does contain less information, also the starting point is frustrating for many, who would prefer it to start a few years earlier.

The more references you have for a given coin the better...IMHO.

Why? If you have, for example, RIC or BMC, what is the point of having a VM reference?  Or who actually bothers with a Moushmov reference?

It goes to the question of what a reference is for: for me they are a shortcut of where to go to find more information, but what more information does VM give you? It seems little more than acknowledgement that someone has noted the type before.

Steve

P.S.
This is not to slag off Moushmov-online in any way, I applaud the effort and it still has it's uses.
P.P.S.
Please noone take unintended offence!

[Robert_Brenchley]

VM's a useful quick reference, and if I'm going away I can take it with me. Who's going to pack ten volumes of RIC on the offchance they might find some coins on sale somewhere?

[Steve Minnoch]

I'm not asking what is the point in owning the book, but in seeking a reference from it when you have superior ones.

Steve

[slokind]

Since I have a bad attitude toward Gloria Exercitus type coins, I do use vM for them.  I have two problems with van Meter: (1)  Its history is copy-and-paste boilerplate and its English is so bad that I'd beg no one learning English to read it, and (2) You can't get from it to anything else, whereas from Sear RCV4 or Kent LRBC there are some references and NOT some wholly new home-made system, yet another.  However, I do use it, till I can go to the Library to check RIC; the little black spots for pictures are not much worse than Varbanov's.  Failmezger is just too difficult, and his Latin is awful; but Doug Smith's photographs are great (just as Ras's are the reason for having ERIC, which also is just too difficult).  Pat L.

[Varangian]

There are occasional references to RIC and Cohen in VM.  There's no question that RIC is far deeper than VM, but it's also 10 volumes.

I like VM as a quick reference for coins, if I'm away or don't have the time to pull out RIC.

[Howard Cole]

I really don't care what reference you use as long as you give an acturate discription.  I hate it when I get just a reference and number.  If you don't have the reference, it is next to useless!  You should always give a discription when possible.  I hate it when someone asks for a RIC number for a coin they have already identified.  What does someone need a RIC number for identified coin, unless they are collecting by RIC numbers, which I feel is a waste of time?

As for what I use, I use Sear and Late Roman Bronze Coinage.  I also use two lesser references that have great pictures of the coins. 

[Steve Minnoch]

My point was not about which books you use (I certainly no problem with people getting as many books as they can get their hands on) but referring to the gathering of innumerable references for the same coin.  We've all seen it, a list of references a mile long for a coin, where surely one or two would serve.

What is the point in writing down "VM xxx" for a coin, when looking up the information in the book would give you virtually no more information about it? (over and above the description Howard) RIC on the other hand, except for certain parts of volume V...


Steve

[jbaran]

I completely agree with you Steve.  I guess my thought process was that if you have VM, use VM, and if a stray RIC number comes along, or one decides to expand his/her library, the additional information can be added. 

Dont worry...I wasn't offended

[Robert_Brenchley]

I'd have thought the point of getting an RIC number is to cross-reference your coin to others. I think coin images in the galleries are far more useful when they have both a detailed description and an RIC (or equivalent) number.

[David Atherton]

VM is a hard reference for me to use precisely because it is a whole new system which really doesn't consistently cross reference with RIC or any of the other major refrences.

It is what it claims to be...a handbook. To be honest I hardly ever use it anymore, unless I'm going to a bourse.

[Robert_Brenchley]

It's hard to see how it could link to RIC, at least for the later volumes which I'm more familiar with, as the systems are too different. I find it useful as a quick reference for coin types, and use my copy regularly.

[bruce61813]

Van Meter is incomplete, but it does help when trying to sort out an inscription or looking at portraits. This is it best use, and though it may not cover all coins it does get you close enoughto look in other sources.

If I had to start from scratch, I would buy the ERIC book. Ras did an outstanding job onthe coins and enlarging the coins to an easily viewable size, so what is a 10mm coin is 30 mm in a picture the size in real life is given and hopefully peopl can take measurments to compare, at least you can see what is there. It does give cross reference to the RIC books, Cohen is okay but badly lacking and as with the RIC for out of date, as there are a very large number of unlisted coins, but some of the volumes are now over 70 years old, and many new dicoveries have been made.

Bruce