Another coin to share that I have had for awhile. Just a low budget greek. Castulo, Hispania Ulterior, (165 - 80 B.C) Æ 27 O: Male Head right. R: Helmeted sphinx walking right, star before, KASTILO in Iberic script below exergual line. Castulo mint 19.4g 27mm Villaronga p. 335, 38; SNG BM Spain 1323 ff.; SNG Spain II 243 ff.; SNG Cop 205; Burgos 543 After a local princess named Himilce married Hannibal, Castulo allied with Carthage. In 213 B.C., Castulo was the site of Hasdrubal Barca's crushing victory over the Roman army with a force of roughly 40,000 Carthaginian troops plus local Iberian mercenaries. Soon after the Romans made a pact with the residents and the city became a foederati (ally) of Rome.
Nice one, those highlights make the coin look abit spooky . I'm a fan of these Castulo issues as well. I currently have three, with one more on the way...
Sweet ... that's a very cool sphinx addition (I don't think that I own a sphinx example? ... man, I need to buy more coins!!) => congrats, Mat
Thanks and nice examples posted. I know they're common but I just really liked this one. I will probably get a better example in time.
There is a lot about these that I would like to know but particularly I would like to understand the great variation we see in quality of workmanship. I'm not talking about differences in grade caused by wear and corrosion but differences of the type that separate Barbarous radiates from the regular coinage of the Gallic emperors they copy. Bing's first two coins pretty much show the range. What explains this? Were these made over many years or copied by rural tribes? Ideas? My two Castulo bulls differ greatly in style and the height of the relief but neither is particularly crude. I selected my Castulo sphinx because it was a very weak strike and showed what I considered an interesting technique in manufacture. The flan was cast in a recess, probably carved in a stone, with tapered sides that would assist in removing the blank from the mold after cooling. There is no sign of a sprue or evidence that blanks were cast in a chain. The blank was placed on the head die and struck with the reverse sphinx. Most coins of the type were hit harder and the blank flattened out but this one retained the stone textured, tapered edges. It was not struck hard enough to force metal into the outer edges of the reverse die so no legend under the sphinx is found. The second (red) bull has signs of connections to adjacent molds in a chain. I believe the green bull may have been made more like the sphinx but it was hit hard enough that the coin is evenly round and flat with full legends. Zumbly's and Bing's sphinxes (or is it sphinges?) were struck with the opposite side of the blank up so his tape is on the head side and the flat around the sphinx. That worked better for legends. The OP is like mine. I love technical matters of coin production as best as we can deduce them from evidence on the coins. We have no records that shed light on such matters.
My example looks like your last coin as far as the way it was struck and how the edges look, in-hand.
