Katalog
| Emittent | Tomis |
|---|---|
| Jahr | 200 BC - 101 BC |
| Typ | Standard circulation coin |
| Nennwert | |
| Währung | Drachm |
| Material | Bronze |
| Gewicht | 7.90 g |
| Durchmesser | 22 mm |
| Dicke | |
| Form | Round (irregular) |
| Prägetechnik | Hammered, Countermarked |
| Ausrichtung | Variable alignment ↺ |
| Stempelschneider | |
| Im Umlauf bis | |
| Referenz(en) | AMNG I-II#2464, HGC 3.2#1937 |
| Aversbeschreibung | Laureate head of Zeus right; countermark: radiate wheel of four spokes. |
|---|---|
| Aversschrift | |
| Averslegende | |
| Reversbeschreibung | Two horse protomes to right; TOMI below; two stars above. |
| Reversschrift | Greek |
| Reverslegende | TO MI ΓΡ |
| Rand | |
| Prägestätte | |
| Auflage |
ND (200 BC - 101 BC) - - |
| Numisquare-ID | 5913194960 |
| Zusätzliche Informationen |
Historical Context: This Æ22 bronze coin hails from Tomis, a prominent Greek city-state on the Black Sea coast during the Late Hellenistic period (200-101 BC). This era saw shifting regional powers and increasing Roman influence, yet Tomis maintained economic vitality. The countermark is significant, often indicating currency revalidation, a change in monetary authority, or extension of legal tender status, perhaps due to coinage shortage or new economic directive.
Artistry: The specific engraver remains anonymous, typical for civic issues. The coin's original design adheres to the Hellenistic Greek stylistic school. Tomis frequently depicted deities like Dionysus, often wreathed, on the obverse, paired with symbols such as a kantharos or eagle on the reverse. The countermark, a secondary impression, adds to the coin's visual history. These were typically small monograms or symbols, applied to validate circulation, sometimes obscuring original artistic intent.
Technical/Grading: Struck on a bronze flan (7.90 grams, 22 millimeters), this issue exhibits typical strike variability common to Hellenistic bronzes. High-points for preservation include the deity's hair and facial features on the obverse, and reverse design elements. Crucially, the countermark's clarity and depth are paramount for grading, as a well-struck example enhances numismatic appeal. Poor centering or uneven striking pressure are common, with countermark placement often overlapping the original design, impacting visual integrity.