Requesting Help In Identifying Coin

to the community

From the looks of it I believe it might be an ancient Roman Provincial coin. Can you provide a size and weight of it? There isn't enough detail for me to ID it.

My gut says Elagabalus, if it is a provincial. I have never seen such a thick bronze (relative to diameter) produced so late, however.

Alexandrian tets are usually pretty thick.

That's over 31 grams, that's very heavy for such a small coin.

This coin cannot be one ounce.
From the pics I am seeing what ?
18-20mm ?
It would need to made of plutonium to weigh an ounce.

An accurate measurement is essential to figure this coin out.
But an Alexandrian tet is probably over 90% certain.

Edit
I just saw the 22mm x 3mm spec
This is a tet
I will guess around 12-13 grams

100% with you FR & Rons comment about the reverse legend is making me lean more towards a Colonial issue.
The She wolf & twins is my thoughts right now but I need a bit more time to dive in and have another look.

I've enhanced the image a bit and to me the reverse does look like a she wolf suckling.

Been swamped at work and am a little behind on the threads this week.

Thought I'd chime in on this one since, for me, it's an interesting case study of how different folks can see different things when looking at the same fairly nondescript, worn imagery on a coin.

Seems most of the gang immediately gravitated toward a thick Provincial with portrait obverse. And you guys are very likely right. I can certainly see the portrait you're seeing.

However, my first thought, prior to reading the responses, was South Asian, maybe Indian (especially given the coin's thickness), with left-facing elephant head, sort of like these (OP coin is at left):


It probably is a portrait, as everyone believes...but I do remain perplexed by the trunk-like line at lower left. Diadem end? Laurel wreath ties? Is there a precedent for ties with such length, thickness, and curvature?

As for the reverse: if it's a she-wolf, and assuming I'm "seeing" her as you all do, then doesn't she have a disjointed hind leg? It's bent to the right (outward) from the mid-leg joint, instead of inward as it should be. (I'm assuming here that folks are seeing the hind quarter with rear leg and tail to right...but perhaps I'm wrong about that?)

As I say, you all are probably on the right track as usual. But it is fascinating to me how interpretations can differ when imagery is ambiguous.