On the other hand, if I squint when I look at the obv, the last two digits of the inscription look vaguely like ON.
I personally quite clearly read NON on the obverse photo, even without much squinting!
Which is actually a bit worrying, because all the Zenonis AE4s with legend that I could find online go AZEN-ONIS, and shouldn't have NON on the left
side on the portrait.
If I squint more
I can kind of turn the NON into IVLN, which a Julius Nepos coin is supposed to have here, but at this point it's grasping at straws.
This urgently needs a better obverse photo, or better yet, a rubbing (probably of the monogram too). Just be careful with the pencil!
EDIT: random unrelated thought - I wonder what the triangular heck possessed the auction house to label this coin
as Julius Nepos when it's a perfect fit to the Anastasius monogram and is nothing like the supposed Julius Nepos one.
I'm guessing that the bidders knew that, which is why it sold below estimate...
EDIT 2: even more unrelated - anyone knows what's going on with the third monogram example on this page
, labeled as "Leo I"?
The two sides fit each other, so it's clearly the same coin, but the monogram looks suspiciously like Leontius, and the legend doesn't look much like either.
EDIT 3: oh, right, it's an exact legend match to specimen 4 in the July 2009 Celator article
, so the legend ends [xx]NASMAI, where the [xx] does not contain any of L, E, O (but can be almost anything else).
That article tentatively guessed Anastasius, apparently because its author couldn't think of anything better; that said, if I had to guess from the NGC specimen, I'd say [VERI]NA /some abbreviation that comes out to SMAI/, which would conveniently explain the Leo-ish monogram. (I don't know enough Latin to take a guess at the abbreviation.)