Catalog
| Issuer | Aegina |
|---|---|
| Year | 350 BC - 338 BC |
| Type | Standard circulation coin |
| Value | |
| Currency | Aeginetic drachm |
| Composition | Bronze |
| Weight | 1.12 g |
| Diameter | 11 mm |
| Thickness | |
| Shape | Round (irregular) |
| Technique | Hammered, Incuse |
| Orientation | Variable alignment ↺ |
| Engraver(s) | |
| In circulation to | |
| Reference(s) | BMC Greek#218-222 Copenhagen#539 III#143 |
| Obverse description | Two confronted dolphins swimming upwards; between them, A. |
|---|---|
| Obverse script | Greek |
| Obverse lettering | A |
| Reverse description | Incuse square divided into five compartments; N-O in incuse. |
| Reverse script | Greek |
| Reverse lettering | N O |
| Edge | |
| Mint | |
| Mintage |
ND (350 BC - 338 BC) - - |
| Numisquare ID | 6706515570 |
| Additional information |
Historical Context: This bronze Æ issue from Aegina, dated 350-338 BC, reflects a tumultuous period. Once a formidable maritime power, Aegina had been overshadowed by Athens and impacted by the Peloponnesian War. By this era, it was a minor state, often subject to shifting hegemonies, notably Philip II of Macedon. The transition from silver to bronze coinage indicates a localized economy for domestic transactions, signifying diminished international trade and a focus on internal stability.
Artistry: The coin's design adheres to Aegina's numismatic tradition, featuring the sea turtle (chelone) on the obverse, symbolizing the island’s maritime heritage. While the engraver is anonymous, typical for such issues, the style belongs to the Late Classical period. This era emphasized growing naturalism, moving from archaic stiffness towards lifelike representations, even on smaller bronze denominations. The reverse often depicts a dolphin or an Aeginetan monogram, executed with simplicity appropriate for the coin's modest size and material.
Technical/Grading: Struck on a small 11 mm bronze flan weighing 1.12 grams, these issues are inherently prone to irregular striking. High points, such as the turtle's carapace and head, are frequently susceptible to wear or weakness of strike. The less detailed reverse may show similar issues. Collectors should prioritize examples with a well-centered strike and clear rendering of primary devices. Corrosion, common for ancient bronze, can significantly obscure details, making well-preserved surfaces highly desirable for this type.