Maximinus Thrax coin identification [解決]

Hi,

This coin I bought yesterday was supposed to be easy to identify but it's appearing to be more troublesome than expected:

Diameter 19 mm

Theorically it should be easy:

Obv. Maximinus Thrax, IMP MAXIMINVS PIVS

Rev. VIRT (??) VS AVG, probably VIRTVS AVG

Now comes the troublesome part: I'm not finding it anywhere.

Tried here on Numista, Wildwinds and OCRE Rome, and nothing even on OCRE.

Posting my OCRE search, it only has two criteria: https://numismatics.org/ocre/results?q=authority_facet%3A%22Maximinus+Thrax%22+AND+material_facet%3A%22Bronze%22

So, anyone has any idea of where I could find an ID for it?

Preferably with a reference number since it will be certain that I would need to add that coin here.

And, in case you're thinking about being a fake: Currently I have no reason to think that, despite the inclined X looking like a T. It was within a small pile of late roman /constantinian bronzes for sale.

Well it isn't a regular bronze imperial coin of Maximinus I, as there is no SC.

It's most likely a contemporary imitation of some kind, a denarius hybridising a reverse type not used by Maximinus.  There is one VIRTVS in a different pose listed in RIC, RIC 106, under “"Hybrids - Barbarous”, although that isn't a term I like.

Purplexed

Well it isn't a regular bronze imperial coin of Maximinus I, as there is no SC.

 

It's most likely a contemporary imitation of some kind, a denarius hybridising a reverse type not used by Maximinus.  There is one VIRTVS in a different pose listed in RIC, RIC 106, under “"Hybrids - Barbarous”, although that isn't a term I like.

I've saw that RIC 106, if you remove the bronze filter and search only by emperor.

But there's no photo of it on OCRE: https://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.4.max_i.106

Didn't expected to be an imitation, i's a well done one (specially when compared to the Tetricus imitations).

And didn't noticed the lack of SC.

Is there any data about Maximinus I imitations? Or should it be added already under barbarous imitations? (https://en.numista.com/catalogue/roman_barbarous_mints-1.html)

I use imitation in a very wide sense here, that could include ancient forgeries, whereas a lot of imitations are just filling in for a lack of small change.   I would lean towards this being an ancient forgery, but I wouldn't like to say for sure as there isn't a great deal of accessible literature on the topic, and my knowledge is limited.   It doesn't look cast so I don't think it qualifies as what people often call limes denarii.  Ancient forgeries are much more prone to hybridisation than regular issues.  

It isn't inconceivable that this might have originally had some sort of silver wash that is now gone, but I see no evidence of this.

In my opinion it might be a “limes denarius”, I think I can still see some of the silver coating left over on the coin's surface. I won't go too much into what that is as I'm not knowledgeable enough but you might wanna read a discussion on the topic here: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=69253.0

Thank you cro321.

I'm feeling like I stumbled on a mystery type.

I did a Google search. For short, limes denarii are a poorly charted territory, many unanswered questions.

So, how would I add it here? The only one similar on our site is N#434884 .

Alright, just added the coin: N#445514 

Thanks to all, and case closed.

I suggest posting it on https://www.forumancientcoins.com/ . Maybe someone there could give you a catalogue reference for it.