Giard,
Lyon, pl. XLV, no. 72, illustrates six
COS IIII /
Eagle on globe Lugdunese
asses of
Vespasian; five of them have
S - C in outer
field, beside the eagle's wings, but one has
S - C in lower
field like yours, below the wings and to l. and r. of the globe.
Giard does not mention this difference,
nor did he assign separate
catalogue numbers to these differing placements of
S - C.
RIC obviously followed him in this, not mentioning the different placements and including them both under the same
catalogue numbers.
One could ask: Since the new
RIC assigns different
catalogue numbers to the same bronze coins with
S - C in
field as opposed to S C in
exergue, wouldn't these two varieties of
Eagle asses at
Lyon also have deserved different numbers? What about other clear differences in the placement of
S - C in the
field, for example
RIC Titus pl. 92, 81-82, S left of Victory's wing in one case, below her wing in the other?
My opinion: such differences should only be given their own
catalogue numbers when it is clear that they serve to distinguish different issues, for example first issue, S C always in
field; second issue, always in
exergue. Otherwise, it seems to have been up to the engraver to place the S C where he thought it fitted best, just as it was up to the engraver to fit in the
reverse legend around the
reverse type, sometimes dividing it in different ways on different dies. Such random differences, without chronological significance, should be included under the same
catalogue number in my opinion.
Yet we
still want to be aware of such differences, and to keep track of them to a certain extent. Achieving that goal in the framework of a
type catalogue will take some finesse. Some differences might deserve letter distinctions, a, b, c etc., under the main
catalogue number; others might be mentioned in footnotes or introductory text or appendixes.