Updated RIC volumes

[Lucas H]

I know RIC II was updated recently.  Are there plans to update other volumes?  Are there projected timelines for any of these.  I like the format of II, and I wish RIC I had one plate coin per entry like RIC II.  Anyone out there know anything about any of this?

[mauseus]

Hi,

Cathy King was revising Valerian & Gallienus but was overtaken by Gobl's MIR volume. Sam Moorhead is revising Carausius and Allectus at the moment.

Regards,

Mauseus

[David Atherton]

RIC II part 2 is in the works but doesn't seem imminent. There is supposed to be a reprint of the existing RIC II Nerva to Hadrian catalog with better plates published as a stopgap until the fully revised version comes out, but no sign of it either.

[curtislclay]

Cathy King was revising Valerian & Gallienus but was overtaken by Gobl's MIR volume.

So Cathy K. has definitely abandoned her project to revise RIC for 253-268?

That would be a shame, because Göbl's German text will never be accessible to most English-speaking collectors and dealers, who will accordingly continue to use the badly outdated first edition of RIC rather than Göbl.

[mauseus]

Hi Curtis,

I can't claim that work has totally ceased for certain as I haven't worked out of the coin room at Oxford since 2000 but G's work certainly fills the space.

Regards,

Mauseus

[SkySoldier]

It would be nice to see a revision of RIC V, since that is what I primarily use, but I'd really like to see a reworking of RIC IX.  I just got it not too long ago and I've been trying to familiarize myself with the late Roman bronze before I start buying, but its a bit difficult to work with, as the numbers aren't sequential, but based on mint.  But it does a nice job covering the mint marks, and between that and LRBC, that period is fairly well covered.

[SC]

It would be very nice to see RIC IX updated. 

Dating to 1933 it is the oldest of the RIC volumes covering the late Roman period and easily the weakest link these days.

Much important work has been done on this period.  There is a great deal of hoard evidence obtained since the 1930s.  Work on individual mints - especially Lugdunum/Lyons and Arelate/Arles - has shed some light.

However, I think that there are still major gaps in our knowledge of the Roman coinage of 364-395 period that need to be addressed.

Shawn

[Lucas H]

I take it from the comments here that I won't be getting an updated RIC I anytime soon?

[curtislclay]

Since RIC I has already been updated, as the first volume of the second edition, in 1984, the publishers probably consider that all of the other early volumes, RIC II to V and IX, deserve to be revised next, before they would consider broaching a third edition of vol. I.

However you are right to feel that the revised RIC I seems inadequate, and could be immensely improved in a third edition, with more thorough cataloguing and much fuller illustration.

[Lucas H]

Since RIC I has already been updated, as the first volume of the second edition, in 1984, the publishers probably consider that all of the other early volumes, RIC II to V and IX, deserve to be revised next, before they would consider broaching a third edition of vol. I.

However you are right to feel that the revised RIC I seems inadequate, and could be immensely improved in a third edition, with more thorough cataloguing and much fuller illustration.

Out of ignorance, I may not be using my terms correctly.  I'm thinking RIC II is the revises volume that covers Flavians alone.  My question pertained to pre-Flavian imperial coinage (I've been calling that RIC I).  Is my nomenclature correct?  Is it the pre-Flavian volume you refer to when you mention the 1984 revision.

As an aside, if I want another comprehensive catalog for pre-Flavian emperors, what would you recommend?

[curtislclay]

Yes, RIC I covers Augustus to Vitellius, and a second revised edition by C.H.V. Sutherland appeared in 1984.

There is no other comprehensive, up to date catalogue for that whole period.

BMC I is still very useful, because much more fully illustrated, but dates back to 1923.

The Paris catalogues I Augustus, II Tiberius-Nero, III Galba-Nerva, are also excellent, illustrating every coin in one of the world's best collections, but with a few exceptions they cover only that collection, not the many missing varieties known from elsewhere.

Von Kaenel's monograph on Claudius is much better than RIC for that emperor, particularly because it distinguishes four mints for the bronze coins, which RIC wrongly attributes to Rome only.