Reference
Note:
The reverse inscription appears to be the product of a die engraving error. The original XIIII looks to have been recut as XVII. This has been interpreted as an attempted revision from Caracalla's fourteenth regnal year (TR P XIIII) to his fifteenth (TR P XV). The latter II should be ignored, as the COS III dating makes TR P XVII unlikely (Caracalla started his fourth consulship in AD 213 = TR P XVI). Therefore this specimen can be dated to AD 212, with its intended prototype being as RIC V Caracalla 199. Unresolved is the apparent presence of an S between the V II, which may indicate further die-engraving error and amendment prior to striking. There is no other suggestion to instead suggest an overstrike or double-strike.
This specimen
Yes
Reference
OCRE : http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.4.crl.250A
