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 | 1 Semis = 1/2 As |
| Currency | Log in to see details |
| 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 | A large six-spoked wheel depicted in full face, centrally positioned within the field of this heavy cast bronze semis. The spokes radiate symmetrically from a prominent central boss or hub, and the wheel's rim is defined by a raised circular border. The overall style is archaic and schematic, characteristic of early Etruscan aes grave coinage. The surface is heavily patinated with natural bronze encrustation consistent with great antiquity. No legend or inscription is present. |
|---|---|
| Obverse script | Log in to see details |
| Obverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Reverse description | Log in to see details |
| 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.