Questions on an Antoninius Pius/ M Aurelius Denarius

[77HK77]

I picked up this coin (and over spent) for the very attractive left facing portrait of Marcus. (IMHO)

I did have two questions regarding the legends;

On the aurelius legend I thought it was just a blocked die giving P III CO rather than P II F COS.
Having the coin in hand I cannot see any evidence of the horizontal strokes for the F, nor any evidence of a blocked S. Could this be a legend blunder? Has anyone seen such a blunder during this time period?

The seller listed the date as 141-143
However Aurelius COS would be 140CE; Antoninus TRP in 139CE and COS III 140CE
Given Antoninus TRP would have been renewed on the accession date should the coin be dated to early 140CE?

[curtislclay]

I'd say clogged die. Isn't the bright spot below and left of the O a trace of the missing S?

Antoninus wasn't yet numbering his TR P, so that title was valid for the entire period and beyond. Only COS III and COS give the date, i.e. 140-144, before those titles advanced to COS IIII and COS II in 145. Without further evidence, we can't say exactly when in that five year period these double-headed coins were struck.

The bare-headed Pius portrait is nice too!

[77HK77]

Thanks Curtis
I realized my TRP error as soon as i read your comment (hand forcefully smacked on forehead)

The bright spot is just that - a reflection in the photo. the field where the S should be appears the same as the surrounding field

[curtislclay]

Addendum: Since the double-headed type had already been struck in 139 (Marcus COS DES), it's very probable that it continued to be struck from the beginning of 140 on, with the new consular titles COS III and COS.

What we don't know is how long its production might have gone on after early 140, and whether the type might even have stopped for a year or two and then been revived, though uninterrupted production until the type ended for good seems more likely.