Before I get to work on the boring parts of today (persuading two machines to talk to each other via some rather mediocre software), I allowed myself to browse some of my scans from the ANS yesterday. Divo 1977, the coins stolen from Naples, is just one of the goodies (need a pdf? just ask!). [NB! I keep calling this Divo 1970 by accident, no idea why. Must clean up file names etc…]
I may have found a new Fabatus control mark (RRC 412/1). My run through Crawford’s plates LXVIII and LXIX turned up no likely matches. I’ve not spotted it in the Schaefer archive either for all he’s identified dozens of control-marks not known to Crawford (you can access this through CRRO). But I’ll be honest I didn’t give it too much time as other things take priority.
follow up on scans from yesterday edits/tweaks – then share Princeton follow up
- Read more on Aes Grave
Rutgers follow up
- Prep PC for tomorrow
international UG response April event logistics Cancel at least one more digital membership
Not Today (but maybe tomorrow, or the day after)
- Teaching requests for Fall 2023
- Set time table for any collaborative RRDP work/publication prep that needs to happen this semester: Chicago pub, INC pub, collaboration with RACOM, etc…
- Circle back to Capito project
- Consider ask for funding from Dean’s office
- Begin Med school rec letter
- record mini myth
- find out what is on that v old harddrive and back up to cloud
- Write up Teaching Eval
- renew Coinarchives
2 thoughts on “21 of 234 days: Fabatus and Cybele”
These symbols are Cr. #164, cited as Kestner 3401. The reverse symbol is incorrectly drawn. RRDP has 7 examples so far, with Haeberlin 2571 a good example in an accessible catalog. Let me know if you would like scans.
If I can find a co-author, I’d like to publish all the new 384 and 412 symbol pairs. Maybe the incorrectly drawn ones, too.
BTW, I just found a new Roscius–#315! It’s for sale in Elsen’s
Hoist by my own petard! Just discovered that the new Roscius I announced isn’t new– it’s Symbol Pair 275. So we’re back to 314 symbol pairs. My error was due to another incorrect drawing, but this time the drawing was mine(not Crawford’s). So the blame is all mine.
On the positive side, 275 had been unique but now has been die matched, so Coverage gets closer to 100%.