We still maintain our previous point of view about the irregular minting of these hybrid coins and we regard them as accidental. Reusing dies in Calagurris by unskilled and illiterate workers moving from Lepida/ Celsa (with some rev. dies?) would be an alternative to imitation, due to the poor quality of some coins of Calagurris. Sharing the same workshop or dies by both mints, in a hypothetical (and not proven) compulsorycoinage supply for the army fighting against theCantabri, is the explanation proposed by M. P. García- Bellido (Arqueología militar romana en Europa, Segovia, 2005, p. 39-40).In any case, we reject an organized cooperation between Calagurris and Lepida/Celsa, because only coins with crude engraving features (style and lettering) are involved and because the mixed results make no sense. The small number of hybrid coins (3 between 170 coins of the types involved: RPC 262, 269, 433 and 438) strengthens our point of view.In addition to these hybrid coins, other related pieces are known, which according to their crude style and incorrect legend, could be judged to be imitations (Celsa: Oxford (= RPC I, 269/imitation); Calagurris: Cores coll. (= RPC S2-I-438/27), favouring the idea that at the time there was an episode of coin forgery. All hybrid specimens seem to have been struck during or near the 20s BC, as can be deduced fromthe probable period when the magistrates held office(Balbus-Porcius: before Augustus’s reign, before or near 36 BC, when the colony bore the name Lepida; and Bucco-Front: late Octavianic or early Augustan period, since the coins bear no emperor’s name and the city changed its name to Celsa). For other hybrid coins, seeRPC 57, S-59A, S2-I-56A and perhaps S-451A-B. The phenomena of imitations or irregular coinages also affected, at least, Osset (RPC 55-57), Irippo (RPC 58- 59) and Caesaraugusta (RPC p. 118).