The coin looks convincing, but I have a suspicion that it is a modern concoction derived from an authentic
aureus.
First, these are
aureus dies. For the
obverse die, see
BMC 535, pl. 57.16, and about five examples in
CoinArchives Pro, one of which I reproduce below. Your
reverse die is different from those of the
aurei named, but I expect that a wider
search would find it too used on an authentic
aureus.
Now at the beginning of Hadrian's reign dies might be shared between
aurei and
denarii, as for example
BMC pl. 46.1-2, an
aureus and
denarius from the same
reverse die. Later in the reign, however,
aureus dies became broader and finer than
denarius dies, with the result there was no more die sharing between the two metals. Your coin, if genuine, would break this rule.
Second,
aurei and
denarii often shared the same
reverse types, but this was not the case in the two issues HADRIANVS
AVGVSTVS P P /
COS III and HADRIANVS
AVGVSTVS /
COS III P P towards the middle of Hadrian's reign. In these issues each of the two precious metals
had its own
reverse types; no
types were shared between the metals. Again your coin, if genuine, would break this rule.
If your coin was definitely recently dug up, or if it seems indisputably authentic in hand, or if other examples turn up in
hoards or excavations, then we will have to admit that it is authentic, the
mint apparently having made an exception in this case by striking a small issue of
denarii from
aureus dies, so of course also with
aureus types. Until then, however, it seems to me more likely that your coin is a modern concoction, deriving from an authentic
aureus.
No
denarii of this
type, incidentally, are known to Richard
Abdy, who is currently working on the new edition of
RIC for
Hadrian. Richard recently sent me a draft of
his new
RIC listings for
Hadrian from 128 on, and (unless I am overlooking it) it contains no
COS III P P Horseman
denarius.
