@El Grafo: Yes, it certainly is one - Do you feel it appropriate that I should get together all the candidates and have a MVR run-off between them? I personally have no conflicts of interest. Martinvl (talk) 19:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@El Grafo: Thanks for your response. I started bringing the alternate image imto line with this one, then came across an unexpected con; I am not sure whether it would be a "show-stopper". There appear to have been six slight variations of the Tiberius denarius (not unexpected). The one that you found was struck during the period AD 36-37. The cruxification took place between AD 30 and AD 33. However, to the casual observer the two coins are the same. If yu think it worth progessing the MVR, I will add the same text about the tribute penny to both images, but the last sentence for the newer coin will have the following addition: "(Note: Coins of this design but with minor differences were stuck both before and after Jesus' ministry. This particular specimen was struck a few years after his ministry)."
Unless we make reference to the "tribute penny", this coin loses its notability and become "yet another Roman denarius". Martinvl (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinvl: I guess if you want to keep the reference to the "tribute penny", this one is the only real alternative. On the other hand, I don't think that "yet another Roman denarius" would be a problem. We have scopes for different sub-types of cars or cameras, so why not have one for each type of denarius? Actually, I could imagine supporting this one as "Tribute Penny" and the other one as "Denarius of Tiberius" … --El Grafo (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
