I think Marius was just handy at the time. Under Postumus, the soldiers wanted to sack the city of Moguntiacum. Postumus refused. The conversation sort of went: Soldier: Can we sack the city? Postumus: No Soldier: Oh. Stab Postumus: Argggghhhhh Soldier: Hey Marius, you wanna be emperor? Marius: Er, yes? Soldier: Marius, can we sack the city? Marius: Er, yes? He probably wouldn't have lasted long. If he was making weapons for the legions, he probably wasn't all that humble, he was probably very good at his job. Still not the "type" that the Senate would have approved of. I think his time was limited as soon as he said "Er, yes?".
The OP reverse is outstanding. Most Marius coins have reverses struck from very worn dies or are poorly struck. That coin is one of the best.
Excellent coin! Great shape indeed. I believe historians are mixing stories here; they are changing names probably with gallic usurper Domitian II, who has only two (up to date) specimens recorded ahnd they even share dies. So here we have the one who could have ruled only for a few days. On the other hand, you have Marius who not only minted at two mints (that alone would be impressive for 2-3 days rule!) but had great output and a stylistic evolution that could only happen with at least a few months ruling. Here´s mine:
Wow, that's a great one! I must have overlooked it when I perused your albums on our recent visit. I also never managed to acquire a Marius (or Laelianus) when I was building the big "A-to-Z" (Augustus to Zeno) portrait set of Roman rulers and ladies. As you know, I have long been fascinated by Roman Imperial coins from very short reigns. I like @stevex6 's example too, and the rest ain't so shabby, either. I will have to pay more attention to Marius in my VCoins browsing and online rambles.
That certainly sounds plausible to me, too. Wouldn't be the first time numismatics has brought to light an error or omission in the historical record.