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 Uncia Telamon?
| Issuer | Uncertain Etruscan mint |
|---|---|
| Year | 301 BC - 201 BC |
| Type | Log in to see details |
| Value | 1 Uncia = 1⁄12 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 | Log in to see details |
|---|---|
| Obverse script | Log in to see details |
| Obverse lettering | TLAM (Translation: [Telamon?]) |
| Reverse description | The reverse presents a heavily corroded and pitted bronze surface with design elements rendered largely illegible due to advanced wear and encrustation. A raised device, consistent with the value mark or type typical of Etruscan uncia denominations, may be discerned in the central field. The coin's reverse exhibits the irregular surface texture and crude workmanship characteristic of peripheral Etruscan bronze issues of the 3rd century BC. No legible legend or inscription is apparent on the reverse. |
| 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 | Log in to see details |
| Additional information |
The so-called "Telamon" designation for this series remains debated — some scholars tie it to the Battle of Telamon in 225 BC, where a Roman-led force crushed a Gaesatae-led Gallic coalition in Etruria, theorizing that nearby mints struck emergency or victory-related issues in the aftermath. That connection is unproven and contested. What is clearer is that the issuing authority remains genuinely unresolved, with attributions spread across several Etruscan centers depending on which catalog you trust.
Haeberlin's die studies remain the most rigorous framework for this group, though the corpus is small enough that new specimens still shift the picture.