Antoninianus With Olive Branch ID Help

the number of leaves do not matter...these are struck with hand engraved dies and there will always be slight differences. Your coin is Claudius II and the reverse looks like APOLLI CONS though there is also an APOLLINI CONS and APOLLINI P CONS; but your reverse legend doesn't seem long enough. So your coin is RIC V Rome 21.

https://en.numista.com/290108

The numista example has H in right field; while yours has M (possibly N; which is not listed for this issue, but is in a preceding issue. Maybe just an error in RIC and it should be listed as N though) in the exergue. Other possibilities listed are A and H in exergue. These are all the same listing, just different workshops.

Yes, the Numista entry is wrong about the coin being silver. You will frequently find incorrect information on the internet; that is why it is always best to check the physical reference.

Your coin is, as I posted RIC V Rome 21, which is what the Numista entry has listed. As far as material, they might be confusing silver with silvered as some of these coins will have silvering added to the outside...but they are still bronze coins.

The weight difference makes no matter, as these coins are hand-struck and there can be a big difference in weights. These coins were struck at X amount to a Roman pound with X being however many coins had to be struck with the current values. Without looking it up I don't know what it was during this period, but in A.D. 313- 318 bronze coins were struck at 96/lb with a pearl ring diameter of 19-20mm and avg. weight of 3.4g

and your coin doesn't have a mintmark, as I posted, it is a workshop. There are different workshops (or officinae) at the mint, so officials can check on specific workers if there are problems or discrepancies.

and I just noticed that the Numista entry references OCRE with a link to a page which also mistakenly uses the word silver. So apparently Numista just copied OCRE and duplicated the error. You see this a lot with online resources.