No, your information is probably correct, as far as what is recorded in RIC VII. So, why would RIC VII call them "rare" if they are actually "common"?
Well, Sear doesn't actually give a rarity scale; it just gives prices. I was judging rarity by the price quoted, compared to prices for other coins. In both cases I quoted above, prices for these are at the bottom end of coins for Constantine, who is a common emperor to begin with.
Two things to point out: as I said above, Sear combines numerous RIC types into one Sear type; the differences between the RIC types within each Sear type are minor, such as spacing between letters or minor variations in portrait style. So it's possible that those particular RIC numbers are scarce, but Sear doesn't think this scarcity corresponds to a high value or makes them valuable and sought after enough to warrant a separate listing. Since Sear is ultimately a dealer catalogue, it's in their interest to promote rare coins as valuable if they really are rare, so it's probably safe to assume that these coins are in fact common.
Second, RIC VII dates from 1966. There's been an awful lot of coins dug up since then. While on average the rarities should still be useful from a proportion point of view, they cannot be fully trusted and actual numbers such as "4 to 6 known" are worthless. And if hoards of specific types and dates have been uncovered, that can throw the old rarity guides out the window.
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 06/02/2011 05:07 am
