I have the following coin of Aurelian from the Serdica Mint. The reverse has a star in the field between the figures, but in ex there is a KA. In RIC everything seems to be a KA followed by something else. Can anyone tell me what I am missing? Thank you in advance!
I suggest using www.ric.mom.fr for the 268-276 period. Your coin is there: http://www.ric.mom.fr/en/coin/3227
the coin Seth linked to has a dot in the reverse legend. look at this one- http://www.ric.mom.fr/en/coin/2726
The missing dot might be accounted by a cluttered die. To me the portrait and the overall style of the coin looks more like Tripolis. Look at that sharp-nosed Aurelian: http://www.ric.mom.fr/en/coinview/3...&mod=result&from=advanced&ancre=type-specimen
Cool Op-Aurelian, Aethelred (congrats) Here is my kinda similar example ... ... *sigh* ... My Aurelian is missing the star "and" somebody stole the exergue K!! I guess that's all you get for $25 delivered, eh?
This strikes me as a good example of a potential problem with an online and searchable database. I love the new RIC site Seth and Victor linked but in this case you have to select the legend with or without a dot to find the coin in question. A hardcopy book is easier for flipping through and seeing the options. The KA with no officina letter and style made me think Tripolis but I'm no expert in these. The Serdica Victor linked has style I expect from that mint and the listing mentions that the lack of officina probably means the coin was from the very first period of production (before they decided they needed officinae letters???). To my lack of expertise, this can be read as "I don't know". Experts don't like those words but they don't bother me. In any event, this is a nice coin. I'd upload it to the site and see what they have to say about it. They seem to appreciate coin they did not have and tolerate things that we amateurs might have found confusing. In this case, I believe their search engine needs to handle coins with dots missing more gracefully. Not all coins are in good enough condition or well enough centered that it will be obvious whether a dot is or is not there. Heaven knows that site has enough photos of coins not clear enough to be obvious down to the last dot but, to be a useful resource, a new book needs to have, at least, footnotes that will warn users that they need to be aware of the dot problem. My example above shows a SOLI INVICTO * KA but there is a dot after the INVICTO (faint and half way to the KA). The pull down lists this legend for both dotted and dotless versions but I failed to find the coin in their listings either way. I do not know if this is a different coin or if the combination of their software and my inabilities conspired to make it not turn up. Anyone who is 'up' on Aurelian and would like to clear this up for me - please do. (I bought the coin for a feature not relating to the dot and listed it as Tripolis in my catalog. Correct?)
You guys never cease to amaze. Lots of info to digest before I can print a card for the flip on this coin, but that is good because it provides an opportunity to study and learn.
When I first started using the RIC V site my rule of thumb was to select many possibilities as to cover as much ground as possible just in case some letters/symbols/spelling etc might be off in the specimen I wanted to attribute. In doing this I made sure that I get more results to pick from. Afterwards I'd take my time and inspect each entry a couple of times to see which one fits best. If still in doubt, as a last resort, there's always the style of the engraving and the overall look, which in this case, as far as I am concerned does not fit with Serdica but rather with Tripolis.
Hats off to @seth77 I believe you nailed it with the Tripolis Mint. RIC-389 appears to be a match. I just didn't look far enough in my RIC catalog.
