Catalog
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!
| Issuer | |
|---|---|
| Year | 35-40 |
| Type | Log in to see details |
| Value | Log in to see details |
| Currency | Stater |
| 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 | Latin |
| 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 | Plain |
| Mint | Log in to see details |
| Mintage | Log in to see details |
| Additional information |
Mules combining the names of Volisios Dumnocoveros and Tigirseno are among the most debated issues in Late Iron Age British numismatics — the pairing of two distinct tribal authorities on a single coin suggests either a brief political alliance in the Corieltavian territory or, more likely given this example's plated bronze fabric, the work of a contemporary forger exploiting that very ambiguity to pass debased metal. Plated counterfeits of this period were not crude operations; the gold surface was applied with enough competence to fool casual exchange.
The Corieltavian naming convention — stacking multiple ruler names across a coinage — makes authentication genuinely difficult, which forgers demonstrably understood.