I think--but am not sure--this sestertius of Julia Mamaea is a reverse die-match to a coin sold by Roma, E-sale 22, lot 711, November 28, 2015. Somewhere along the way, both dies seem to have been recut; the Roma example appears to have been cut as many as three times. What do you think? Post your coins struck from re-worked dies, Julia Mamaea sestertii, Venus Felix types -- whatever you feel is relevant. Julia Mamaea, AD 222-235. Roman orichalcum sestertius, 21.21 g, 30 mm, 12 h. Rome, 4th emission, AD 224. Obv: IVLIA MAMAEA AVGVSTA, diademed and draped bust right. Rev: VENERI FELICI, Venus standing right, holding Cupid and scepter; S-C across fields. Refs: RIC 694; BMCRE 190-194; C 62; RCV 8232; Banti 16. Here's the coin from Roma: Now, side-by-side, rotated to nearly the same orientation:
Hmm. There are many many differences-- differences not due to strike and wear. The reverse legend is similarly spaced and has similar letter shapes (but not the S-C), but is that enough to say that one was re-engraved? However, I'm not very familiar with re-engraving and haven't often looked at pairs of coins with this in mind.
I posted what I considered to be a case of re-engraving on my page from long ago. http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/feac6.html Recent eye surgery has me, temporarily at least, not able to render an opinion but I do know that there are more variables than I considered when I wrote my page and telling the difference between recuts and some oddities of striking will require very careful consideration. Even on a good day, working from photos will require extreme care while working directly from coin will require better vision.
I can't see how the two reverses could have come from the same die, re-engraved or not. I tried superimposing them and no amount of resizing, distorting, or rotating would make more than a few points match. Look at various points in the following animation. The exergual line and globe were aligned and RC's coin resized to make Venus roughly equal in height on both coins. I also tried superimposing them with the reverse legends matched up but they were just too different to line up on more than a few points.
The obverse die used to strike the two coins below was reworked to correct the spelling of the empress's name. Before, with the incorrect ANNIAN : HERENNIA ETRUSCILLA AE29. 13.29g, 29.4mm. CILICIA, Tarsus, AD 249-251. RPC 1368 (18 spec). O: ΑΝΝΙΑΝ (sic) ΑΙΤΡΟΥϹΚΙΛΛΑΝ ϹƐ, draped bust right, wearing stephane, crescent behind shoulders. R: Τ - ΑΡϹΟV ΜΗ – ΤΡΟΠΟΛƐΩϹ around, Α /Μ / Κ - Γ / Β in field, Cult statue of Apollo Lykeios standing left on omphalos, head right, holding wolf by forelegs in each hand. After, corrected to ЄPЄNNIAN : HERENNIA ETRUSCILLA AE30. 11.15g, 29.8mm. CILICIA, Tarsus, AD 249-251. RPC 1371. O: EPEΝΝΙΑΝ ΑΙΤΡΟΥϹΚΙΛΛΑΝ ϹƐ, draped bust right, wearing stephane, crescent behind shoulders. R: ΤΑΡϹΟV - ΜΗΤΡΟΠΟΛƐΩϹ around, Α / Μ / Κ - Γ / Β in field, Dionysus standing left, holding cantharus over panther and thyrsus.
I just got one Julia Mamaea recently from forum. Here it is Rome mint, weight 2.893g, maximum diameter 19.3mm, die axis 0o, 226 A.D.; obverse IVLIA MAMAEA AVG, diademed and draped bust right; reverseVESTA, Vesta standing half-left, veiled head left, palladium in right hand, long scepter vertical behind in left hand;