Eric M, you seem to be correct, that this is different from the
RIC 1323 (PROFECTIO)
type.
I wonder if this could be "
COS III"? If so, there may have been an example published by John
Evans over 150 years ago: "NOTE ON A
HOARD OF COINS FOUND ON PITSTONE COMMON, NEAR TRING, 1870,"
Numismatic Chronicle Vol. 10 (1870), pp. 125-132. Available in PDF for free download from JSTOR:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42680874 OR on
Google Books
[LINK]I am not sure of the ultimate disposition of these coins (BM?), but with a little effort maybe it can be tracked down. Not sure why it wouldn't have been cataloged in later references. There was no illustration given then. He gives no
weight but describes it as
AE1 (i.e., what was called "
First Brass" back then, I believe, or
Sestertius).
His description (Page 129/30):
Lucius Verus.
Obv. L. AVREL. VERVS AVG. ARMENIACVS. Laureate bust to right.
Rev. PROFECT. AVG. S.C. (in exergue) COS. III. above the Emperor in military costume on horseback to right. In front, a soldier looking towards him, with helmet, spear, and shield ; behind, two others. Unpublished AE1.
I would've suspected that it was just a
typo and he meant "PROFECTIO," but he specifically comments on PROFECTIO as being the previously known
type with an "almost similar
legend," and this one being different (
Evans 1870, p. 126):
There are, however, among them one or two rare coins, of which one, in fair condition, presents a new type of Lucius Verus. There are coins known of this emperor with a similar device and an almost similar legend on the reverse, but struck during a different consulate, and probably relating to a different expedition. These coins have the legend PROFECTIO AVG, and the second and third years of the Tribunician Power and the second consulate of the emperor, and probably refer to the expedition against the Parthians in A.D. 163. The coin now brought to light bears the third consulate, and cannot be earlier than A.D. 167, so that the expedition referred to is probably one of those against the Germans, though, as these were undertaken jointly by Aurelius and Verus, it seems strange that only one emperor should be represented on the reverse.