Onward and Upward - Carthaginian reenacting

[MeinPanzer]

Hi, Ruben - the two coins with helmet on the reverse are interesting, in that the the 'offset' dies show they were not minted in Carthage, but most likely in Spain, or even South Italy. There are better/crisper versions of this coin, and it is this helmet I was referring to as 'Thracian/Thraco-Attic' .

I am no numismatist, so I don't know about things like this. Good to know!

( As an aside, I dislike helmet typologies, since even Imperial Roman helmets differ markedly from one another - they were all too obviously not factory made - unless maybe the late roman types e.g. 'Intercisa' were made in 'Fabrica.)
Likewise, I am with you on the 'de-based corinthian' helmets (also called "Etrusco-Corinthian" because of their popularity there).

I agree, especially when you have deliberate hybrid helmets, but it's better than "helmet with front visor and small brim and short metallic crest and small neckguard" .

The latter makes the point that a popular etruscan helmet would certainly be in use in Carthage, given their strong trade/alliance ties.
All this means that it is likely that Carthaginian troops, whether mercenary or Liby-phoenecian, are likely to have closely resembled Hellenistic mercenaries, such as those on the Sidon tomb paintings - incidently Sidon, along with Tyre were the two major Phoenician cities., though one suspects that whilst the professional mercenary might afford a Hellenistic helmet, a Liby-Phoenician levy/conscript might have had to make do with a simpler mass-produced 'pot'.

You have to remember that the equipment of the Sidon mercenaries isn't really indicative of anything Phoenician because the mercenaries weren't Phoenician- they were almost entirely Anatolian (mostly Pisidian and Carian). Unless you suppose that their equipment was provided by the state, in which case you would have to go about proving that, and I know from experience that there's almost no evidence one way or the other!

The Athena portraits almost all seem to me to depict the traditional 'corinthian', tilted back, rather than 'de-based' types (look at the skulls and notice also that they are all missing the brow band on the carthaginian, thus looking distinctly 'classical corinthian') - but admittedly very difficult to be certain on this scale and within the limitations of the coin medium.

I disagree. Look at the neckguards- they are all clearly set farther back than the neckguards of ordinary Corinthian helmets, and would awkwardly flare out if worn as the Corinthians normally were. Pseudo-Corinthians weren't always without a brow band as there seem to have been various types of helmets ranging from wholly Corinthian all the way to wholly Pseudo-Corinthian, with different variations in between. Some had the brow band, others didn't; some had the large face just as it was on the Corinthian only on the raised visor, others had only a small, vestigial face, and others had no face at all.

Interesting - thanks! It is also interesting that the coin you have in your post is different coin than the one in my post and the wear patterns are different. See?

On the top one the areas that I think look like cheek pieces (not sure about the bit by the chin, heck now that I've seen a second coin I could go either way on the whole thing) are here:

Yes, but they are from the same mint. And what you identify as a cheek piece on the original one posted in this thread is just wear on his cheeks and chin, and comparison with the example I posted shows this. How could you explain there being hair on the outside of the cheek piece?