I've got another finer point of
attribution I'd like to run past my fellow Septimius fans.
This coin was sold to me and attributed by a dealer as
RIC IVa 383, but I think it's actually 383a.
The difference is that 383 is spelled correctly as
FORTVN REDVC.
383a is FORTVN REDVG
383b is FORTVI REDVC
So obviously on this issue, like many
Emesa issues, spelling mistakes on the
reverse were really common. I've heard it hypothesized that the celators were either Greek unfamiliar with Latin, or illiterate workers copying a correctly spelled master coin.
All three
RIC 383 variants have the same
rarity rating, and
Cohen considered these to all be C175, regardless of spelling differences. Across all variants there were only 3 examples in RD according to
Mouchmov and the entire issue is classed "scrace" by
Mattingly.
Truthfully, I think this is the REDVG variant, as I think the finally character is what
Mattingly interpreted as a G - but I'm looking for other opinions on the matter.
Details of the coin here:
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=171085