2 is the only one with any doubt but it is TRS which is common of 'slightly' barbarous coins and I dont like a few details so I'll say all.
The victories on two look pretty "funky" to me with those stubby little legs, fedoras, and tiny wreaths, I'll say all 4.
The picture of the second coin is a little bit blundered, that makes the evaluation more difficult. However, the bust of the emperor is not bad, as the obverse legends. I agree that the Victories are kinda weird, but here also de legend don’t have a typical barbarous pattern. I consider three possibilities: 1) An emission of Treveri (Trier), that really struck coins with a more rough appearance, but not barbarous, by the romans. 2) The coin was produced by an unofficial, but still roman mint (itinerant maybe?) on a period of shortage of money, to pay the legions in boundary’s zones, like the previous limes denarius. 3) In my opinion, the most improbable, a well-done barbarous emission, made by Germanic tribes already well-acculturated or adapted with the romans.
TRS = the mint mark for coin 2. It's details are correct, but the crudeness of its execution suggests it too is barbarous. For the other three there is no doubt.
idk they all look barbarous on the reverse to me.. the last one's obverse looks legit..kinda..for the benefit of doubt i'd say 3.
It would be nice if 'barbarous' was an on/off situation bu there are many coins that could be a bad day at the good mint or a good day at the bad one. My favorite Trier copy is this Urbs Roma which I would not have suspected of being unofficial were it not for its one little problem. The legends are not mirror image but everything else is.
