I don't have any copies of RIC - they're expensive, and for a generalist like me collecting the whole set would be prohibitive. So my opinions on them are based solely on what I've read about them on the forums, and deduced from observations on discussion about the coins themselves.
1. Not only does each mintmark have separate numbers (the volumes covering the post-Diocletian period actually sort by Mint, rather than by Emperor), but each minor variation in inscription and design. Where the breaks in the legend occur also appears to be significant: a coin with FELTEMP REPARATIO would have a different number to an otherwise identical coin with FELTEMPRE PARATIO.
2. It all depends on which catalogue has the more comprehensive listing, or which catalogue lists that particular variety better. RIC is the most often quoted, but the British Museum catalogue (BMCRE) is sometimes quoted too, and for silver coins Sear's "Roman Silver Coins" (RSC) is quoted.
The main problem with the RIC catalogues is that they're not a unified whole - each volume was written at different times by different authors, who each had their own ideas on layout, sorting, rarity, categorizing and even exactly what qualified as a separate variety. Some of the older volumes have been (and are still being) re-written to try to make them more coherent as a unified series, as well as more comprehensive. Catalogues like Sear have the advantage of having just one author, so the whole Roman series is treated the same way.
3. You might find copies on
ebay,
Amazon, AbeBooks or other large second-hand book sources. Larger ancient coin dealerships like
FORVM might also have copies for sale; in their case, when they have a full set of 11 books in stock (they currently do not), it would sell for $1275, with individual volumes currently in stock ranging from $97 to $290.
4. Identifying the correct RIC number for a particular type can be tricky, even for people who actually have the correct RIC catalogue, since in some RIC volumes attribution details are sketchy. But in most instances, I think incorrect RIC numbers are a result of taking shortcuts: a large number of
ebay sellers are probably looking up a secondary reference such as Sear, Wildwinds or an auction catalogue, finding a coin that's "close enough" and reporting the RIC number that they've found as theirs - even if their coin actually has a completely different RIC number.
5. Just the list of numbers won't do you much good without adequate descriptions and/or pictures of what the numbers were. In short, you'd really need the entire actual RIC in digital format. Google Books has them, with the usual restrictions for accessing copyrighted works.
Quote:
how can mintmarks be attributed to specific mints and even specific years attributed to coins? Having studied Archaeology I understand how frequency distribution could indicate a mint but how can narrow years be assigned to coins? I understand how its done for COS nos and on other coins where a year of reign is indicated but unsure how its managed for others. Did the Romans leave records?
If the Romans ever left detailed Mint records, such as "In the year AUC 1007 there were 10 million antoninianii and 2 million denarii of the PRINCIP IVVENTATIS design struck in five mints throughout the Empire", they have not survived. And in truth, such records about specific types and varieties would have been impossible to collate, given the decentralized nature of coin design at the time. We don't have any kind of annual mintage statistics at all, not even the total face value of money minted - and some kind of records certainly would have once existed about
that, since many of the emperors would have wanted to know at all times how much of their money was out there.
All we have in the historical records are the occasional references to coin designs and coin issues in the "popular histories" which have managed to survive the ages. By far the most comprehensive and detailed records and statistics we have about Roman coinage are the ones obtained from studying the coins themselves - they are far more numerous, and far more enduring, than anything written on parchment. That's why archaeologists like coins so much: they survive when so much else has been lost.
The short answer to this query is, indeed, "archaeology". We coin collectors rarely appreciate just how much effort the archaeologists have put into allowing us to precisely date our coins. Basically, they've had to work from the few coins that actually do have good specific dates on them or are otherwise datable (such as the few mentions of coinage issues and designs in the written records), and work backwards from those using hoards and other evidence to narrow down likely dates of issue. Much of this work has only been done in the last few decades. My 1980 edition of Sear has virtually no dates of issue given; my millennium edition Sears attribute dates for all coins, in most instances narrowed down to just one or two years.
Quote:
I get the impression that its all somewhat 'work in progress' and can be a bit fuzzy and grey and there is prob more unknown to us that known. Is this correct?
That would be a fair assumption. It's certainly a "work in progress" in the sense that new archaeological discoveries are constantly being made and new theories tested and proven (or disproven), all of which help to narrow down the chronological record even further.
Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
Posted 01/22/2011 09:38 am
