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!
Potin Unit Nipples / Dump Type / Holman G4
| Issuer | Cantii tribe (Celtic Britain) |
|---|---|
| Year | 60 BC - 45 BC |
| Type | Standard circulation coin |
| Value | Log in to see details |
| 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 | 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 | ND (60 BC - 45 BC) - G4/6-1: Outline of head, right - ND (60 BC - 45 BC) - G4/6-2: No outline of head, profile (right) only - |
| Additional information |
Potin coinage among the Cantii was cast rather than struck — a distinction that explains the characteristic rough surfaces and irregular flan shapes that define the type. The "dump" classification simply reflects the thick, lumpen form produced by the casting process, not any degradation of the piece itself. Holman's classification work, building on Van Arsdell, helped untangle decades of misattribution within this series, as Cantian potins were long conflated with similar issues from the Trinovantes to the north.
By the mid-first century BC, potin was already an archaic monetary technology in Gaul, where struck coinage had largely taken over. Its continued use in southeast Britain likely reflects conservative local practice rather than technological isolation.