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 | Uncertain city of Central Italy |
|---|---|
| Year | 301 BC - 201 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 | A four-spoked wheel occupying the central field, the spokes meeting at a raised central hub and extending to a plain outer rim. The design is boldly cast with heavy, slightly irregular spokes, a motif commonly associated with Central Italic aes grave and related cast bronze coinage of the 3rd century BC. The field is otherwise plain, with no legend or additional devices. The rim is slightly raised and uneven, consistent with the casting technique employed. |
| 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 |
The attribution "uncertain city of Central Italy" reflects a genuine scholarly impasse — these bronzes circulate through the literature under shifting assignments, with Haeberlin, Thurlow-Vecchi, and Sydenham each offering different candidate mints without consensus. The third century BC saw numerous small Oscan, Umbrian, and Latin communities issuing independent bronze coinage before Roman monetary integration progressively absorbed or eliminated local traditions.
ICC#321 places this piece within a loose typological grouping rather than a firm civic attribution.