Missing option

Hello it appears I have a coin that belongs under this type but is not listed. 

Mine has an S in right field.

very cool.

you can request to add a line to the coin page by clicking here -

Winkelman19

Hello it appears I have a coin that belongs under this type but is not listed. 

 

Mine has an S in right field.

Please give us the weight, diameter and thickness. We also need an image of the other side, please.

The coin is looking too perfectly circular to be genuine?

TBH it doesn't really look that round. But yes more information and example pictures for a new variant if it gets added are always a good idea. But it could also be listed elsewhere, I have no idea on what ground anient coins get their own page we have thousands of entries that look very similar with only tiny differences and every hand cut die seems to be considered a unique type.

Imagine the image if the angle of the photo had been 90° on top of the center of the coin? 

Still not perfectly round like you would expect from a cheap forgery. Like I said the shape doesn't look suspicious to me. There are many Roman coins that are very round especially the thinner ones.

All matters for the referee to address.

Looks round to me when adjusted for camera angle.

But what really puzzles me is that there is no S in the Greek alphabet.  Wouldn't the next one after delta be epsilon?   

Like this:

S for Souvenir ?

Sjoelund

S for Souvenir ?

Maybe, but obviously not a variant of the this coin.  

Diameter is 24mm

Thickness is 1mm

I do no have a good scale.

This was actually added to the coin?????  Is there anything anywhere that substantiates this coin moving from the Greek alphabet to the Roman (Latin) alphabet for the 5th Officina?  I wonder if the referee that approved it can explain.

Well observed, @rsirian1 !

We know, probably, who made the CR, although advised, that the S was not possible, that was the first error!

Second error, the referee accepting the error in the CR from the OP, without having read this forum thread.

That's how errors come easily into numista, and afterward they are very difficult to get rid of.

You guys are throwing aspersions on a Numista referee who looks to me know his stuff.

There are other examples of S being listed, typically after epsilon, such as in: http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.8.nic.67

And 

http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.8.nic.71

And 

http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.8.rom.314

And many others

It must not be impossible 

I understand that it is a sigma but it appears much more pronounced as "S" than “ς”

Similar to this example: 

Maybe so but are you so sure that your coin is the same one? My concern is that if it indeed a reproduction it becomes a real coin by virtue of it being in the Numista catalog.  Numista will then be the authoritative reference for every other one to be authentic.  

At least use ς and 6th Officina (skip over 5th) as the others for this ruler are done.

N#225119

N#194016

N#81836

N#54128

N#328140

N#54128

I understand your concerns, and we all want to keep the catalog as accurate as possible. I have no doubt the coin is genuine. I think changing it to “ς” and 6th Officina as well as adding epsilon rather than skipping it is a good idea. I found some examples of both ς and ϵ, perhaps will help rest some of the concerns of authenticity. 

Sounds good. Thanks.