S. Severus Denarius Emesa Mint Saecvl Felicit (Six Or Seven Stars?)

@JohnConduitt-Thanks for your reply. RIC 416cf - Reverse: SAECVLI FELICIT, my Reverse: SAECVL FELICIT (without I in SAECVLI)

Can I raise a few points?
Firstly the coin is not a COS I coinn. It is a COS II with an I-I legend break with the second I being below the bust. This is the cause of many coins being mis-read as COS II. This makes the coin RIC 417.
Secondly, the COS I issue is not actually allocated RIC numbers but are Listed separately in RIC on pages 138 and 139 and numbered 1 to 10 (See below). Even this however is dangerous to take literally as many of these coins do not exist as COS I coins and are also mis-readings of COS I-I coins.




That is not to say however that the COS I issue does not exist but care needs to be taken. It also doesn't mean that this reverse type doesn't exist for COS I. See my example below which comes from one of the very few confirmed COS I obverse dies.



Some more COS I coins:-







Incidentally there are a number of the COS I-I dies and even a few COS-II but all these dies are generally quite scarce so it is still a highly desirable coin

I don't have any other examples of the same obverse die as the OP coin but have several other obverse dies with this break






Regards,
Martin

@pastpost - It is my pleasure. The following obverse die is even more troublesome. I am not aware of a concensus on it's reading but will give you my view.

This first coin shows how an off-centre strike can make readinf difficult.

The only obverse legend of any use reads "IMP CAE L SEP SEV PEPT AVG COS"



The next example shows two small strokes under the bust. I (and a few others) read these as two poorly engraved Is under the bust yet others dismiss them. There is so much to learn about this series and this isn't helped by the many mis attributions that appear in RIC and BMCRE even though they are the best references that we have available today.



Regards,
Martin

@dougsmit was seriously into the COS I and COS I-I series; his website still has the articles but he hadn't been seen on CCF for a while now. Not sure why.