It is difficult to ascertain the numbers of specimens known for the rarer Roman imperial coin types of 161-192 AD, since Strack's fourth volume covering that period, which I think had advanced to the stage of page proofs, was apparently destroyed in World War II, in which Strack himself also lost his life. Cf. Maria Regina Kaiser-Raiss, Coinage of Commodus, 1980, note 13: "P.L. Strack collected material for a study of the coinage of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, which according to his publisher Kohlhammer was in all likelihood destroyed in the war." One of the rare earliest types of Marcus Aurelius' and Lucius Verus' joint reign was Togate Emperor standing left holding globe, struck for Marcus with legend TR POT XV COS III and for Verus only before he had been granted the tribunician power, with legend just COS II. No aurei have been recorded with this type for either emperor; denarii occur for both of them, with two specimens in the Reka Devnia hoard for Marcus and two for Verus; as to middle bronzes, at least two dupondii are known for Marcus, and an As which presumably also exists was reported by Cohen from Rollin, but no middle bronzes of either denomination have yet been attested for Verus; finally as to sestertii, none with this type have so far been reported for Marcus, but according to Cohen Paris possesses such a sestertius for Verus with a bare-headed, draped and cuirassed bust on the obverse, and a similar coin, but with its obverse legend recut by modern hand from the original IMP CAES L AVREL VERVS AVG to L AELIVS - CAESAR, was in Ars Classica XVII of 1934, lot 1433, where the coin was assigned to Aelius Caesar because the remade obverse legend was overlooked. More recently two new bust types for this rare sestertius of L. Verus have emerged: first bare-headed, cuirassed bust left, seen from front, in Aureus E23, 2018, lot 492, see dealer's picture above. This may be the first bust left portrait to be recorded on a sestertius of L. Verus. Second a rather battered specimen with bare-headed bust right, probably with a fold of aegis or cloak on front shoulder, sold by CGB in October 2021; again see dealer's picture above. These two new specimens share the same reverse die with each other and with the recut Ars Classica sestertius cited above. It would be nice to clarify the bust type of the second coin by finding a better preserved specimen from the same obverse die. (Sorry for forgetting to press the button to move the pictures to the top of the thread.)
I note that the new RIC for Hadrian, p. 253, note 1297, still accepts the recut Ars Classica sestertius of L. Verus as "a medallic sestertius [of Aelius Caesar] with S C", though in a footnote devoted to "hybrid types with anomalous reverses for Aelius which are forgeries or doubtful", and with the comment that the piece has "bold, heavily serifed lettering...reminiscent of Paduan legends."
I said no middle bronzes of this type had been recorded for Verus, but such a dupondius of Verus was in fact reported by Cohen in the Supplement volume to his first edition (1868) as being in the de Moustier collection, though unfortunately no confirmatory description of such a coin can be found in Hoffmann's sale catalogue of that collection which was published four years later (1872).
Or was the de Moustier coin of Verus actually an As, with portrait bare not radiate? That's what Cohen indicates in his original description of the coin in his first edition, Supplement vol. VII, 1868, p. 190, no. 18: "Bare-headed bust right wearing paludamentum and cuirass." However in his second edition, vol. III, 1883, L. Verus no. 63, referring to the same de Moustier coin, the description of the bust type has been altered without explanation to "Bust radiate, draped, cuirassed, right". RIC 1298 and BMC p. 522 of course follow Cohen's second editon, making the coin a dupondius, without noting the variant description in the Supplement volume of the first edition, which would make it an As. One might guess that Cohen, who had seen the coin, was right, and that the change to "radiate" was just a compiling error of the second edition, after Cohen's death in 1880; but who knows?
