I personally have a few issues with this coin - it's obviously only my opinion, but we all have them
On the positive side of things, it was found in the ground, and - if we believe the Munich example to be at least 100 years old, then this one too would be 100 years old+
It also looks quite barbarous, which would fit in with a 'locally' made coin, although given that it is a die match to the one in Berlin, it was lucky to travel that far without seeing any circulation wear.
Also, the module size is wrong - even Domitianus (of whom there are only two known coins, one found in a hoard in Oxfordshire) had a coin of the correct module (flan size and shape) for his time - and matching the metal of those coins. It's more like a 'local' issue rather than an 'official' issue - which of course could be explained by being made by a non regular mint.
Also - and to me this is a bit more puzzling - the obverse legend misses out the 'PF' bit of the emperor's titles - in general most of the coins of the peroid (especially the Western ones) have IMP C [emperor] P F AVG - this one doesn't - now, I know that there are plenty of coins of Aurelian / Probus that have variants on these, but all the ephemeral emperors seem to follow that pattern - and indeed usually the first coins of any emperor give more of their name than later issues.
As was stated in the Daily Mail article, people in the renaissance (and during the grand tour) wanted coins of people in their collections and some were 'made' to fill them (e.g Paduans) - indeed quite a few people think the large Carausian brass medals were also made for this market.
I could be wrong, but I would have been more convinced if it had been found in a hoard...
It'll be interesting to see what it does finally sell for - not that I'll be bidding (couldn't afford it anyway!)
