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!
Drachm Alexander III Type
| Issuer | Uncertain Eastern European Celts |
|---|---|
| Year | 200 BC - 1 BC |
| Type | Log in to see details |
| Value | 1 Drachm |
| 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 | Zeus Aëtophoros enthroned to left, his right hand extended and holding an eagle, his left resting on a long sceptre; the throne and figure are rendered in a degenerate, Celtic-abstracted style derived from the standard Alexandrine drachm reverse. A blundered and largely illegible imitation of the Greek legend appears to the right of Zeus, while a schematic amphora symbol is positioned to the left in the field. The overall composition reflects the progressive stylistic debasement typical of Celtic imitative coinage of this series. |
| Reverse script | Log in to see details |
| Reverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Edge | Log in to see details |
| Mint | Log in to see details |
| Mintage | ND (200 BC - 1 BC) |
| Additional information |
Celtic imitations of Alexander's coinage were struck across a vast geographic arc for well over a century, but the eastern European issues — particularly those attributed to tribes in the middle Danube basin — represent the furthest ideological drift from their Macedonian prototype. By the time pieces like this were being struck, the original types had been in circulation long enough that local die-cutters were working from worn coins rather than official models, producing progressive stylistic abstraction that was functional rather than artistic ambition.
The Kostial and Göbl references place this within a recognizable typological cluster, but "uncertain" attribution here reflects genuine scholarly disagreement, not cataloging laziness.