Catalog
See full images - free registration
Continue with Google - no registration!
or register with email
Why register? Just to keep bots out of our catalog. Your email stays private - we will never share it or send you anything uninvited. We guarantee you that!
1 Semis Wheel / Axe
| Issuer | Uncertain Etruscan mint |
|---|---|
| Year | 240 BC - 225 BC |
| Type | Log in to see details |
| Value | Log in to see details |
| Currency | As (circa 301-201 BC) |
| Composition | Log in to see details |
| Weight | Log in to see details |
| Diameter | Log in to see details |
| Thickness | Log in to see details |
| Shape | Log in to see details |
| Technique | Log in to see details |
| Orientation | Log in to see details |
| Engraver(s) | Log in to see details |
| In circulation to | Log in to see details |
| Reference(s) | Log in to see details |
| Obverse description | Log in to see details |
|---|---|
| Obverse script | Log in to see details |
| Obverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Reverse description | A double-headed axe (bipennis or double axe) depicted in high relief at center, with the handle oriented vertically and the two symmetrical blades projecting laterally. Two pellets flank the axe head, serving as value marks indicative of the semis denomination. The design is boldly cast in the archaic Etruscan aes grave tradition, with a plain, unadorned field surrounding the central device. No legend or inscription is present. The flan is irregular and shows natural casting marks consistent with the period. |
| Reverse script | Log in to see details |
| Reverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Edge | Log in to see details |
| Mint | Log in to see details |
| Mintage | ND (240 BC - 225 BC) - With V to left - ND (240 BC - 225 BC) - Without V to left - |
| Additional information |
Etruscan bronze coinage of this weight class belongs to a minting tradition that operated largely outside Roman monetary authority, though by the mid-third century BC the pressure of Roman expansion was forcing northern Etruscan communities into increasingly dependent relationships with Rome. Pieces of this size and type were cast rather than struck — the technology of the Roman aes grave tradition — and the specific mint attribution remains disputed among specialists, with Haeberlin's groupings still serving as the foundational reference despite more than a century of subsequent scholarship.
The ICC#168 classification places this among a narrow group of semis issues whose production window likely closed as Roman monetary standardization absorbed or displaced local Etruscan casting operations entirely.