Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Expert Authentication - Accurate Descriptions - Reasonable Prices - Coins From Under $10 To Museum Quality Rarities Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Support Our Efforts To Serve The Classical Numismatics Community - Shop At Forum Ancient Coins

New & Reduced


Author Topic: Why did RIC do this?  (Read 3101 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Meepzorp

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 5127
    • Meepzorp's Ancient Coins
Why did RIC do this?
« on: December 16, 2014, 05:43:55 am »
Hi folks,

About 2 months ago, I won a coin in auction by a major Italian coin dealer. It is a very rare (R2) AR denarius of Augustus. I paid for it back then, but I didn't receive it yet. They are waiting for export permission from the Italian government, which usually takes 3-4 months. I should be receiving it in circa February 2015.

When I read the description for this lot, the reference stated was RIC 222. I have the RIC Augustus volume. I think it is the circa 1984 version. So, I looked it up. In my RIC book, RIC 222 is a completely different coin. It has a quadriga reverse.

In my RIC book, the coin I won 2 months ago matches RIC 2a. So, I wrote up my tags (which I insert into my mylar flips) as RIC 2a. And I just assumed that the dealer had made an error. I completely ignored the RIC 222 (erroneous?) reference.

Then, the other day, I was reading a thread in the ID section here in this forum. Someone was questioning the RIC reference numbers because there was some confusion. Someone (I think it was Pekka) pointed out that the new RIC reference work uses different numbers. The numbers are completely different from the circa 1984 version of RIC.

So, my question is this: Why would they do something like this?

It is going to screw everything up and create a lot of confusion. My coin tags are all written up using the "old" RIC numbers. I foresee this creating all sorts of problems (and confusion) down the road - not only for me, but for many people.

Anyway, here are photos of the Augustus AR denarius coin I won 2 months ago (I hope this works):

Meepzorp

Offline Pekka K

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 7336
  • ...one coin at a time...
Re: Why did RIC do this?
« Reply #1 on: December 16, 2014, 05:57:03 am »

Sutherland says in preface of RIC 1 rev. 1984:

Offline Andrew McCabe

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 4651
    • My website on Roman Republican Coins and Books, with 2000 coins arranged per Crawford
Re: Why did RIC do this?
« Reply #2 on: December 16, 2014, 09:17:04 am »
There's times when force-fitting to an old catalogue numbering system is practical, one can add -bis numbers, additional commentary such as "this issue, in the Spain section of the catalogue, should more correctly be placed in Gaul alongside issue xyz", or "this issue, previously assigned to Augustus, is now believed to have been struck under Gaius", you can simply delete numbers for non-existence coins, or modify incorrect descriptions whilst keeping the same number. The extent to which you can correct, whilst staying within the same framework, really depends on the excellence of the original arrangement. Really excellent arrangements are made to stand the test of time, such as Fulvio Orsini's 1557 arrangement of Roman Republican coins, adopted by many authors, most notably Babelon in the 19th century, whose numbering system is still used unchanged today (with the addition of -a -b -c suffixes and deletion of unproved entries) in the Seaby / Sear Roman Silver Coins volume 1.  The Cohen arrangement used for RSC 2 onwards is frankly less successful because it ignores easily available dating information and separates issues which belong together due to accidental quirks of lettering (Babelon avoids this pedantry). So while you'll see Babelon numbers in today's auction descriptions, you are less likely to see Cohen. I had no problem adapting the Crawford arrangement for the RBW book, with the addition of plenty of footnotes and infill numbers. Sometimes, however, as Sutherland makes clear, enough is enough, the old arrangement foundations are disintegrating, and you just have to start from scratch, or else be faced with a catalogue where every second entry is either a new coin type or demands a footnote explaining why the old arrangement is broke. In the case of RIC 1, the old arrangement was apparently so broke that a concordance could not be provided. A basic rule of coin cataloguing seems to have been misplaced by Mattingly and Sydenham. That rule is to always cite one actual public collection or public auction example of each coin type. That way, when catalogues get revised, concordances can always be made because the coin or its picture can always be re-examined and assigned a new-system number.

Offline bpmurphy

  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 1295
Re: Why did RIC do this?
« Reply #3 on: December 16, 2014, 11:05:55 am »
The 1984 edition of RIC 1 is the new version. I would assume whoever cataloged this coin as RIC 222 just looked it up in RSC and copied the RIC cross reference. RSC was written before the 1984 edition of RIC so the cross references are to the old edition. Even the most inexperienced dealer shouldn't make that mistake, specially since the new edition of RIC 1 is 30 years old now.

Barry Murphy

Offline curtislclay

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 11155
Re: Why did RIC do this?
« Reply #4 on: December 16, 2014, 12:09:56 pm »
It was unfortunate that two standard catalogues, Seaby's Roman Silver Coins I (1978) and Giard's Paris catalogue of Augustus (1976), came out just a few years before the new edition of RIC I (1984).

The inevitable result is that the RIC references in these two standard catalogues are to the superseded old edition of RIC.

A fact that even a beginning dealer shouldn't overlook, as Barry says; but unfortunately we're all human and it's easy to make such mistakes!
Curtis Clay

Offline Meepzorp

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 5127
    • Meepzorp's Ancient Coins
Re: Why did RIC do this?
« Reply #5 on: December 16, 2014, 04:52:08 pm »
Hi Barry and Curtis,

Thank you both for pointing this out. It cleared up some confusion on my part.

The version of RIC (Augustus volume) that I have is indeed the 1984 edition. So, this wasn't a case of RIC changing the numbering system and screwing everything up after all. It was the dealer's error from the beginning.

I wasn't 100% percent sure of the situation. I've heard that RIC is producing newer editions. But, since I only have the Augustus volume, and since I am not familiar with the other volumes or the entire RIC series in general, I didn't know where the error was or where to place blame here.

As you guys pointed out, I guess that the dealer's erroneous RIC 222 reference was cross-referenced from another work (RSC?). He probably didn't bother to check his own RIC volume for accuracy.

If anyone out there has the original, first edition RIC volume #1 (from many decades ago), it would be easy to see if RIC 222 in that edition is the same coin as RIC 2a in the 1984 edition.

Meepzorp

Offline Adrian W

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
    • Cape Coral Real Estate FL
Re: Why did RIC do this?
« Reply #6 on: December 16, 2014, 05:00:44 pm »
I have the old one and says IMP CAESAR AVGVST(VS) Bare Head r,P.CARISIVS.LEG.PRO.PR Spear-heads,hield and sword
Highest Rated Zillow agent in the County

Offline Meepzorp

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 5127
    • Meepzorp's Ancient Coins
Re: Why did RIC do this?
« Reply #7 on: December 16, 2014, 05:12:07 pm »
I have the old one and says IMP CAESAR AVGVST(VS) Bare Head r,P.CARISIVS.LEG.PRO.PR Spear-head, shield and sword

Hi Adrian,

Thank you for that information.

Yes, it is an exact match. RIC 222 in the original Augustus edition is the exact same coin type as RIC 2a in the 1984 edition.

Mystery solved. It was dealer error.

Meepzorp

Offline David Atherton

  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 4704
  • The meaning of life can be found in a coin.
    • Flavian Fanatic Blog
Re: Why did RIC do this?
« Reply #8 on: December 16, 2014, 05:59:25 pm »
The problem is worse for the new Flavian RIC II since it is relatively new (2007). Many dealers/collectors still use the old obsolete RIC numbers and it causes a lot of confusion! Hopefully as time passes the new RIC II will become better established.

Thankfully for the casual Flavian collector Wildwinds has converted to the new RIC numbering.

Offline Volodya

  • Procurator Monetae
  • Consul
  • *****
  • Posts: 190
    • Imitations of Roman Republican Denarii
Re: Why did RIC do this?
« Reply #9 on: December 16, 2014, 06:09:51 pm »
The problem is worse for the new Flavian RIC II since it is relatively new (2007). Many dealers/collectors still use the old obsolete RIC numbers and it causes a lot of confusion! Hopefully as time passes the new RIC II will become better established.

At least the revised Vol. II has a concordance to the first edition. There's really no good reason why the revised Vol. I didn't have one as well.

Phil Davis

ras

  • Guest
Re: Why did RIC do this?
« Reply #10 on: December 16, 2014, 08:22:12 pm »
In theory, the primary purpose of a reference in a catalogue is as a shortcut to locating more information about the coin in question because it's easier quoting a number than potentially a paragraph's worth of text. It is also meant to lead you to another similar coin so you can compare the two as a test check... a way to essentially peer review your work and proof it against an error. This being the case you would benefit most by a reference that makes it easiest to locate that similar coin. Today that ideal would be an online link which the least useful being a second-hand reference which is the equivalent of saying "I'm putting it here because so and so swears it's real!" but still better than nothing.

In practical terms though references tend to get used by collectors as virtual slots in a collection and just because it's a fun part of the process to look up your coin and see how and where it belongs in a series.

In either case they never were meant to be static mile markers, especially in ancient coinage where new variants are reported continuously, which is why if you want to write down a reference number the best way to do it is to also reference the particular volume or edition you got it from.

Ras

Offline Meepzorp

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 5127
    • Meepzorp's Ancient Coins
Re: Why did RIC do this?
« Reply #11 on: December 17, 2014, 05:29:08 am »
The problem is worse for the new Flavian RIC II since it is relatively new (2007). Many dealers/collectors still use the old obsolete RIC numbers and it causes a lot of confusion! Hopefully as time passes the new RIC II will become better established.

At least the revised Vol. II has a concordance to the first edition. There's really no good reason why the revised Vol. I didn't have one as well.

Phil Davis

Hi Vol,

Yes, that may be true. But, in this case, it is possible (or maybe even probable?) that the dealer didn't even bother looking in RIC at all. As Barry and Curtis pointed out, he may have just cross-referenced it from another book (RSC?). In this hypothetical situation, it wouldn't matter if RIC volume 1 2nd edition contained references to RIC volume 1 1st edition.

By the way, I'm surprised that this particular dealer made this error. It is very unlike him to do this. He is usually very professional and accurate. This is certainly an anomaly for him. This thread is in no way a knock on him. As you can probably tell, I originally started this thread with the thinking that the problem lied with RIC's numbering system and the changes in it between different editions.

Going into it, I had no idea that this thread was going to lead down this path. It certainly took a twist that I wasn't expecting. It just proves that you never know where things are going to lead. And it also helps to have friends who have information (and/or reference books and/or dealer experience) that you don't have.

Meepzorp

Offline Meepzorp

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 5127
    • Meepzorp's Ancient Coins
Re: Why did RIC do this?
« Reply #12 on: December 17, 2014, 05:40:50 am »
...if you want to write down a reference number the best way to do it is to also reference the particular volume or edition you got it from.

Ras

Hi Ras,

I agree. In fact, I was going to write that in a post here.

But how can someone, especially a dealer, do that in a shorthand way?

In this particular case, we are dealing with a book has both many different volumes and more than one edition. In long-form, this is how you can express this coin type:

RIC volume 1 edition 2 2a
RIC volume 1 edition 1 222

How can a dealer compress that? Maybe this?:

RIC v1 e2 2a
RIC v1 e1 222

Do you see the problem here? That may really complicate things and make it even more confusing. In some ways, it is less confusing. But, in some ways, it is even more confusing, especially to a new and inexperienced collector. And it is extremely long-hand (even the compressed version) for a dealer who is publishing a catalog containing over 1,000 coins. I don't know if it is practical.

Meepzorp

Offline leetoone

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 630
  • Yorkshire, England
    • Lee Toone
Re: Why did RIC do this?
« Reply #13 on: December 17, 2014, 08:28:46 am »
I try to keep an up to date list on all the RIC volumes here

http://www.hookmoor.com/home/?page_id=175

Having said that, it's probably due a review :-)

It's not too difficult with RIC as only one and a half volumes have been revised so easy enough to check both. Old editions should not be replaced but augmented. Reprints are mostly irrelevant as they are not revised, sometimes the plates are improved though.

L


Offline David Atherton

  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 4704
  • The meaning of life can be found in a coin.
    • Flavian Fanatic Blog
Re: Why did RIC do this?
« Reply #14 on: December 17, 2014, 09:01:41 am »
After clicking on your link Lee it made me wonder about the RIC II.2 reprint with the better plates. Almost seven years after it was announced and it's a nonstarter.

Offline leetoone

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 630
  • Yorkshire, England
    • Lee Toone
Re: Why did RIC do this?
« Reply #15 on: December 17, 2014, 09:09:07 am »
Yes, and the original is unavailable as out of print. I'll check current progress with Phil Skingley at Spink and update my page.

Offline Andrew McCabe

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 4651
    • My website on Roman Republican Coins and Books, with 2000 coins arranged per Crawford
Re: Why did RIC do this?
« Reply #16 on: December 17, 2014, 10:46:00 am »
Quote from: Meepzorp on December 17, 2014, 05:40:50 am
...if you want to write down a reference number the best way to do it is to also reference the particular volume or edition you got it from.

Ras

Hi Ras,

I agree. In fact, I was going to write that in a post here.

But how can someone, especially a dealer, do that in a shorthand way?

In this particular case, we are dealing with a book has both many different volumes and more than one edition. In long-form, this is how you can express this coin type:

RIC volume 1 edition 2 2a
RIC volume 1 edition 1 222

How can a dealer compress that? Maybe this?:

RIC v1 e2 2a
RIC v1 e1 222

Do you see the problem here? That may really complicate things and make it even more confusing. In some ways, it is less confusing. But, in some ways, it is even more confusing, especially to a new and inexperienced collector. And it is extremely long-hand (even the compressed version) for a dealer who is publishing a catalog containing over 1,000 coins. I don't know if it is practical.

Meepzorp

To avoid a further chain of confusion, given that many younger collectors owning RIC 1984 may have no idea whether theirs is the first or the tenth edition, and also as those not familiar with book terminology can get confused between 2nd edition and 2nd printing, it's probably clearer to write:

RIC 1 (1984) 2a

But, not to forget a point that Andreas often raises, if you don't own or have access to RIC (any edition) but do own RSC, then I think it far better not to include an RIC reference in one's own documentation or tickets. Without owning the volume it is absolutely impossible to know if you are referring to the correct type, and it also is of no use to you as the coin owner, given that you don't own the book, nor is it of any use to anyone else e.g. who might be looking at your online gallery, given that one has no way of checking whether the numbers cited are from an old or a new edition or no edition at all, being simply transcription errors. Unless you've an absolutely reliable online resource (and acsearch isn't that because it transcribes all the errors made by auction houses unchanged) then provided you own or can access at least a single reference work such as RSC, then I'd just cite the reference work you are able to personally consult, and nothing else.

Offline Meepzorp

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 5127
    • Meepzorp's Ancient Coins
Re: Why did RIC do this?
« Reply #17 on: December 17, 2014, 11:11:45 am »
I try to keep an up to date list on all the RIC volumes here

http://www.hookmoor.com/home/?page_id=175

Having said that, it's probably due a review :-)

It's not too difficult with RIC as only one and a half volumes have been revised so easy enough to check both. Old editions should not be replaced but augmented. Reprints are mostly irrelevant as they are not revised, sometimes the plates are improved though.

L



Hi lee,

The only RIC volume I have is the Augustus volume (volume 1), and it is the 1984 edition. I don't have any of the other 9 volumes. I am just not that into Roman Imperial coins. I'd rather spend my "numismatic reference book money" on Magna Graecia references and Medieval Italian references.

That being said, given how universally it is used, and how it is the dominant "go to" reference for Roman Imperial coins, I am really surprised that, after all these decades, no one has published revised editions of the other volumes. I am just amazed at that. And, with regard to the volumes where announcements were made that revised editions were going to be published, people are even dragging their feet on those editions. I don't get it at all.

Meepzorp

Offline Jay GT4

  • Tribunus Plebis 2021
  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 6987
  • Leave the gun, take the Canoli!
Re: Why did RIC do this?
« Reply #18 on: December 17, 2014, 11:18:20 am »
Don't be amazed...it's a HUGE undertaking and by the time you're done it is obsolete again! ;D

Offline Meepzorp

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 5127
    • Meepzorp's Ancient Coins
Re: Why did RIC do this?
« Reply #19 on: December 17, 2014, 11:26:40 am »
Don't be amazed...it's a HUGE undertaking and by the time you're done it is obsolete again! ;D

Hi Jay,

I get that. But, at some point, you just have to draw an arbitrary line and say, "Okay, we start/stop here". Otherwise, nothing will ever get revised.

Meepzorp

ras

  • Guest
Re: Why did RIC do this?
« Reply #20 on: December 17, 2014, 01:51:22 pm »
Heh, I know of a guy who's attempting to do just that http://dirtyoldbooks.com/eric3 :-)

I would agree with Andrew McCabe's system since the year leaves no doubt which book is meant. Remember, whether you're a dealer or a collector you're putting down a piece of information that will become obsolete at some point in the future so you might as well "future proof" it as much as possible!

Ras

Offline bpmurphy

  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 1295
Re: Why did RIC do this?
« Reply #21 on: December 17, 2014, 03:42:04 pm »
Heh, I know of a guy who's attempting to do just that http://dirtyoldbooks.com/eric3 :-)

I would agree with Andrew McCabe's system since the year leaves no doubt which book is meant. Remember, whether you're a dealer or a collector you're putting down a piece of information that will become obsolete at some point in the future so you might as well "future proof" it as much as possible!

Ras

That's not necessarily true at all Ras. Most books don't get rewritten under the same name so it's fairly easy to tell what reference is being referred to. Only RIC and Hendin, that I can think of off the top of my head, have come out with new volumes under the same name, and Hendin's numbering system changes sequentially so there's no confusion over what edition is being cited. Standard references sometime become obsolete with new standard references, but almost always under a new name by a new author, so there's not really any difficulty knowing what reference is being cited.

Any dealer should be up to date on whatever the most current edition is of RIC. It's the standard work on Roman coins and a dealer who can't keep up with new volumes that are updated every 75 years or so probably shouldn't be a dealer. It's $100 every 10-20 years to keep current. There should be no confusion really. I can understand a collector not being current, but not a dealer.

ERIC will never be a standard reference for anything with the numbering system you choose to use. I've been reviewing your Complete Coinage of Septimius Severus and have found over 30 varieties not listed, including 6 Rome mint issues, and I've only made it through about 50% of my "Complete catalog" of Septimius Severus which I know isn't complte. Luckily I have the digital copy of yours so I can search for legends fairly quickly, but it still takes 5 minutes or more per coin to find the bust type #, obverse legend #, reverse legend #, reverse type # then search through the columns looking for a match on all 4 parameters. A printed copy might take 15 minutes or more per coin. That's just nuts. In 15 minutes I can look up 20 coins or more in RIC.

[edit]...

I removed my comments about Ras' rarity spreadsheet and moved them to the appropriate thread.


Barry Murphy

ras

  • Guest
Re: Why did RIC do this?
« Reply #22 on: December 17, 2014, 07:57:29 pm »
Man, you *really* have it in for me LOL!

Barry, I get it. You don't like my work. We have something in common. I don't like my work either! This is why I'm constantly redoing it over and over ;-)

If you have a sincere interest in seeing those 30 varieties published go ahead and email them to me. I will happily list you as a collaborator. Or publish your own compendium and show me how it's done. I promise that regardless of what I think of you as a person that I will be grateful for however better informed I am afterwards. As a test that I'm not attached to my own pet theories I like to be proven wrong because from that I'll learn something whereas without an intellectual challenge I won't and in the end what matters most is moving the knowledge bar further up.

Ras
ps. And for the record I don't have any opinion of you. I don't know you and I don't participate in these forums to make friends (even when that's a nice bonus). All I know is that whenever I see your name in response to one of my posts there's a negative comment. Give it a rest dude.

Offline Meepzorp

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 5127
    • Meepzorp's Ancient Coins
Re: Why did RIC do this?
« Reply #23 on: December 19, 2014, 02:36:59 pm »
Quote from: Meepzorp on December 17, 2014, 05:40:50 am
...if you want to write down a reference number the best way to do it is to also reference the particular volume or edition you got it from.

Ras

Hi Ras,

I agree. In fact, I was going to write that in a post here.

But how can someone, especially a dealer, do that in a shorthand way?

In this particular case, we are dealing with a book has both many different volumes and more than one edition. In long-form, this is how you can express this coin type:

RIC volume 1 edition 2 2a
RIC volume 1 edition 1 222

How can a dealer compress that? Maybe this?:

RIC v1 e2 2a
RIC v1 e1 222

Do you see the problem here? That may really complicate things and make it even more confusing. In some ways, it is less confusing. But, in some ways, it is even more confusing, especially to a new and inexperienced collector. And it is extremely long-hand (even the compressed version) for a dealer who is publishing a catalog containing over 1,000 coins. I don't know if it is practical.

Meepzorp

To avoid a further chain of confusion, given that many younger collectors owning RIC 1984 may have no idea whether theirs is the first or the tenth edition, and also as those not familiar with book terminology can get confused between 2nd edition and 2nd printing, it's probably clearer to write:

RIC 1 (1984) 2a

But, not to forget a point that Andreas often raises, if you don't own or have access to RIC (any edition) but do own RSC, then I think it far better not to include an RIC reference in one's own documentation or tickets. Without owning the volume it is absolutely impossible to know if you are referring to the correct type, and it also is of no use to you as the coin owner, given that you don't own the book, nor is it of any use to anyone else e.g. who might be looking at your online gallery, given that one has no way of checking whether the numbers cited are from an old or a new edition or no edition at all, being simply transcription errors. Unless you've an absolutely reliable online resource (and acsearch isn't that because it transcribes all the errors made by auction houses unchanged) then provided you own or can access at least a single reference work such as RSC, then I'd just cite the reference work you are able to personally consult, and nothing else.

Hi folks,

Andrew's method (using the year) makes a lot of sense, and it may be the best method. But it is not 100% fool-proof. Suppose someone is new to the hobby, and he doesn't know much. And suppose has a RIC reprint. Then, he won't be able to find his year at all. He will really be confused.

Meepzorp

Offline helvetica

  • Tribuna Plebis Perpetua
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 1799
  • Helvetia Libera Deo Gratia
    • ID Help pages + RIC lists + www.wildwinds.com
Re: Why did RIC do this?
« Reply #24 on: December 20, 2014, 07:46:41 am »
Re the posting about RIC II above. Yes, on wildwinds I use the new numbering,
that renumbering and corrections of the Flavians was actually one of the last big
jobs I did for Dave Surber before he died.
For those who want it, I do actually have a correlation xls list "old RIC II to new RIC II"
with my usual dropdown column system, in case anyone wants a copy. Just drop me
an email (address is in my profile) and add a note with your Forum name and
"RIC correlation list please". The list isn't on my RIC xls page if I remember correctly.
When I do add it, it will be on the passwort-protected page.

 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity