Speculation question.

[Antiq]

Hi, i am new in this hobby, by reading articles, books, etc. i found some imperators or usurpers, or sons of someone, etc. for who is known only few coins, is possible that existed people who had they own coins which was not discover to this day?

For example:

Calocaerus (In 333/334 A.D., on the island of Cyprus, the Magister pecoris camelorum Calocaerus revolted and took up the purple. He was defeated by Dalmatius the Censor. The usurper and his accomplices were tried and executed at Tarsus in Cilicia.)

or

Gellius Maximus Although Gellius Maximus was a lowly physician's son, he achieved the status of Roman senator. His ambitious nature was further demonstrated when he became an officer in the Fourth Legion (Scythica) in Syria.[[11]] In 219 A.D. he took advantage of a period of unrest during the reign of Elagabalus and declared himself emperor. Elagabalus, however, quelled the revolt and ordered Gellius Maximus put to death.

or other.

Thank you for answer for newbie.

P.S: If you know some new discovered emperors or others ... thank you for images or least text.

[Robert_Brenchley]

There was quite a fuss about Domitianus a few years ago, when a second coin of his turned up, and he was proved to have existed!

[gavignano]

It would seem likely there are more. there are several personalities within the first three centuries of imperial coinage for example where numsmatists are debating the authenticity of a single or few coins or speculating coins exist of someone when none are presently known. Pretty cool!

[dougsmit]

I find it interesting that Domitianus II did not make Akerman's 1834 book even though he listed quite a number of coinless usurpers and those whose coins were in doubt as to authenticity.  The finding of the first (1900) coin of his was discounted as a fake (why?) but I'd be more inclined to discount a coin from the list of guys who had no coins but could have been expected to have stuck some since fakers would be very aware of the names on that list.  Akerman mentions a number of doubtful coins which I would enjoy seeing photographed just to see if the style was at all believable or obvious tourist grade creations. 

[curtislclay]

No literary text or inscription attests that there was ever an emperor called Domitian II, therefore he could not be known until the first coin appeared in 1900.

There was NO GOOD REASON WHATEVER to condemn the first Domitianus coin; its condemnation was an arbitrary pronouncement by Laffranchi in the face of obvious fact!

The coin was, after all, found in a large hoard and was in normal style for a Gallic Empire coin.  Therefore it was correctly accepted as genuine when first discovered, and was so reported by RIC V.2 (1933), p. 590, pl. XX.12.  And therefore it was also correctly rehabilitated as authentic by Marcus Weder in the mid 1990s, BEFORE discovery of the second specimen!