The most frequent hypothesis is that these coins were made by breaking old coins, especially Theodosian
AE2.
A coin can be easily broken into two or four parts: any other breaking seems difficult to make and therefore improbable. The dividing into four parts gives rise to four triangular flans with an angle of 60° and the opposite curvilinear
side, which is what is most frequently observed. However, dividing is not easy and would often give rise to logs with an angle greater than 60°, up to 90°, or less than 60°, up to 45°, which is what is observed. Furthermore, since most of these triangular coins can be inscribed in a
circle of about 15 mm in
diameter, it follows that if they originated from the breaking of an old coin, this should have a
diameter of about 30 mm with a thickness similar to that of the nummi of the fifth century: a
diameter incompatible with the numerals of the fourth century, the largest of which - maiorine and decargiri - have a
diameter of about 21-23 mm, and also that of the
follis born from the
Diocletian reform, about 25 mm, does not appear consistent with the size of the triangular coins struck in the name of
Valentinian III and, moreover, they are perhaps too thick.
Instead, the equilateral shape with the three rounded sides and the three vertices of approximately 60°, seems to be the result of a
flan to which we wanted to give this shape, and not the result of breaking an old coin.
What explanation can be given to this particular form of these controversial issues in the name of
Valentinian III?
Are they the result of breaking old coins (with subsequent annealing in the oven almost to the melting point), or are they the result of a
flan deliberately having this shape?