So I recently picked up a cheap snack from the Bay. The coin was attributed as a young-ish, post child but pre-beard Caracalla. After a bit of poking around I found the same coin on acsearch sold by CNG attributed also as: Ob: M AYΡ ANTΩNINOC AVΓ BITHYNIA, Nicaea. Caracalla. AD 198-217. Æ 22mm (6.01 g). Laureate bust right, slight drapery on left shoulder / NI-KA/I-EΩN, hexastyle temple. RG pg. 458, 475; BMC Pontus pg. 164, 79 var. (obverse legend); SNG Copenhagen -; SNG von Aulock -. VF, dark green and black patina, some minor roughness on the reverse. From the Garth R. Drewry Collection. https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=360802 However after some further searching in addition to some other coins attributed to Caracalla, I started coming across coins (both identical and just from the same obverse die) as attributed to Elagabalus. Caracalla (Same obverse die but different reverse die): https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1543372 https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=992486 https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=226563 Elagabalus (Similar.. either die match or close): https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3344605 https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=4604670 https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=456760 So... teen-ish Caracalla or late Elagabalus? In addition.. lets see your toss up Caracalla/Elagabalus coins. Edit: Notice the pellets on the well preserved examples at the beginning and end of the obverse legend... you can just barely see them on mine.
Yeah that's what I thought at first as the bust looked older than late Elagabalus... but the more I view examples I'm not sure.
Assuming the titulature on provincial coins of Nicaea parallels that on the imperial series, M AYΡ ANTΩNINOC AVΓ would be the equivalent of M AVR ANTONINVS AVG. This title is EXTREMELY rare for Caracalla, being used for just a few weeks in December 198, according to @curtislclay. I'm disinclined to attribute this to Caracalla, but that inscription without a preceding CAES doesn't make sense for Elagabalus, either. Curious, indeed.
There are several coins in RPC VI that are attributed temporarily either to Caracalla or Elagabalus e.g.: https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/6/4763 and https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/6/3062. For yours https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/6/3113 they also say Rec 437 as Caracalla. To make things even more confusing, previously they had this one https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/6/6566/ as Elagabalus or Caracalla but they deleted this entry.... go figure I would attribute yours also as Caracalla or Elagabalus
Coins for reign Caracalla are not included in RPC online yet. If you search for Caracalla you get entries with Reign: uncertain, Elagabalus, Sauromates .., but not a single one for reign: Caracalla
I would say Caracalla because Elagabalus looked very young in his portraits due to his teen accession to the throne. E also had a rounded, boyish face in his portraits with a short pug nose with full lips and round vaguely eastern -ish eyes. I honestly think there has been a general confusion because provincials are just still shot through with more questions than answers a lot of times. There are entries in Rec Gen where coins of C are attributed to E but for the most part if you compare known portraits of each you start to see the differences in portrait more clearly even if the legends are similar.
Discerning certain provincial coins of Elagabalus from those of Caracalla is a long-standing problem. In general, more recent references will likely represent more recent thinking but there isn't always a consensus. I can suggest the following article: Johnston, Ann (1982), 'Caracalla or Elagabalus? A Case of Unnecessarily Mistaken Identity' in American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 27, New York, pp. 97-147. Most ANS publications are available to read online at hathitrust.org.
To beat this comparison a bit more than it probably needs to be... here's a few more and some findings after some additional searching. More Elagabalus of the same obverse die: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=180576 https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=172431 More Caracalla of the same die: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1325078 https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=172431 A more usual and maybe earlier Ela: Many more typical Elagabalus coins do have the legend as on my coins as M AYΡ ANTΩNINOC AVΓ... leading me to believe that my coin, although looking more like a young Caracalla is Elagabalus. A more usual and maybe later Caracalla: Later coins of Caracalla from this mint seem to have the legend ANTΩNINOC AYΓOYCTOC https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3618550
I swear the provincials of these two guys are sometimes spitting images of each other. The same, or similar obverse legends don't help either. This little guy could easily go both ways. I went for Elagabalus, but I could flip a coin and go Caracalla.
My preference may be influencing my opinion. I'd prefer it to be Caracalla as I think he's more impactful on the history of the empire. However... when I think more on who's more interesting... I guess it would be Elagabalus. He was unique and although maybe not as impactful, a more colorful story.
