This post will detail the coins issued with the later reverse inscription. For an example of a sestertius of this reverse type but with the earlier inscription and hairstyle, @Julius Germanicus posted an example 3-1/2 years ago. Here are the sestertius and middle bronzes in my collection bearing the later obverse inscription: Faustina II, AD 147-175. Roman orichalcum sestertius, 25.20 g, 31.1 mm, 6 h. Rome, AD 152-156. Obv: FAVSTINA AVGVSTA AVG PII F, bare-headed and draped bust, right. Rev: S C, Diana, draped, standing front, head left, holding out arrow in right hand and resting left on bow, set on ground. Refs: RIC 1383(2); BMCRE 2194; Cohen 210 (erroneous obv insc.); Strack 1326. Notes: Obverse die match to the British Museum specimen. Faustina II, AD 147-175. Roman copper alloy as or dupondius, 9.80 g, 24.1 mm, 6 h. Rome, AD 152-156. Obv: FAVSTINA AVGVSTA AVG PII F, bare-headed and draped bust, right. Rev: S C, Diana, draped, standing front, head left, holding out arrow in right hand and resting left on bow, set on ground. Refs: RIC 1405c (erroneous obv insc.); BMCRE p.382 note after no. 2194; Cohen 211 (erroneous obv insc.); Strack 1326. These coins are relatively scarce and examples with legible obverse inscriptions are hard to find, even in museum collections, leading to the inaccurate transcription of the obverse legend by Cohen and others. Here are the relevant entries in Cohen, RIC, and BMCRE to see how this confusion originated and was propagated: Cohen (note no. 210 and 211): These are the obverse inscriptions and the listings in RIC: Note three types of sestertius cited by RIC, legend 2 (the later legend like mine) in the Schulman Sale, legend 3 (the early legend like @Julius Germanicus's example) as Cohen 206, and legend 5, which doesn't exist and is an uncritical citation of Cohen 210: Two types of MB are cited by RIC, legend 3 (the early legend, cited as Cohen 207; it also uncritically cites the non-existent left-facing variety erroneously described by Cohen as 209) and legend 5 (which uncritically cites the erroneously described obverse legend in Cohen 211): BMCRE notes this obverse inscription is a rare type and notes the British Museum had obtained an example of a sestertius of this reverse type since the publication of RIC and correctly transcribes the obverse legend (my coin is an obverse die match to this specimen). It notes that Cohen quotes the legend as "... PII FIL" but does not explicitly say this is in error. Post anything you feel is relevant, of course! ~~~ 1. Sestertius: RIC 1383(3), BMCRE 2180, Cohen 206, Strack 1325 [early hairstyle]; left-facing bust in the BnF, Cohen 208 and verified by Strack [later hairstyle]. Middle bronze: RIC 1405a, BMCRE 2191, Cohen 207, Strack1325. The existence of the middle bronze with a left-facing bust, RIC 1405b, BMCRE 2191n, Cohen 209, is doubtful. Cohen cites the de Moustier sale–an error, the coin listed in the sale catalogue, H Hoffmann, Paris (de Moustier), 17.6.1872, lot 1766, has a right-facing bust and FAVSTINA AVGVSTA AVG PII F and is (incorrectly) cited by Cohen two entries later (211). Strack lists no examples. 2. Sestertius: RIC 1383(2), BMCRE 2194, Cohen 210 (erroneous obv insc.), Strack 1326. Middle bronze: RIC 1405c (erroneous obv insc.), BMCRE p.382n, Cohen 211 (erroneous obv insc.), Strack 1326.