The book has a certain historical interest, as the first general
catalogue of
Roman imperial coins (first edition 1579), and the first to attempt to list them in chronological order.
Eckhel by 1790, however, already regarded Occo's
work as superseded, since in 1683 Mediobarbus published a new general
catalogue of
Roman coins, including all of Occo's listings and a large number of new ones. And even that
work by Mediobarbus is of little practical use today, since it doesn't give
obverse legends,
nor distinguish between
sestertii and middle bronzes, above all because it is filled with erroneously described or invented coins, so that as
Eckhel says, you should not cite a single coin from it without confirming that such a coin actually exists in some
collection or some more reliable book!
My own
library contains Mediobarbus'
catalogue, which despite its innumerable errors does correctly describe some interesting coins and was the
standard catalogue of
Roman coins from 1683 until Eckhel's day. But I would have little use for Occo, and would hesitate to buy
his work for 280 euros, let alone 2800!
Babelon cites two curious facts about Occo, who was a medical doctor from Augsburg: he advocated the medical use of rhubarb, and asserted that
his conscience would not permit him to acquiesce with the Gregorian calendar reform!
