The traditional interpretation of this inscription makes it in honor of C. Claudius, moneyer of RRC 300.
But this article upsets that (full original pub on order from ILL) This is AE summary.
Machine translation cleaned up by moi.
“This article proposes that the name of Ap. Claudius Αρ. f. C. n. Pulcher, consul in 130 BCE, be restored instead of that of C. Claudius Αρ. f. C. n. Pulcher, consul in 92 BCE. Both were co-consuls with an M. Perperna. But Gaius, whose praetorship dates back to 95 BCE, was not praetor repetundis but praetor peregrinus and the curator uiis sternundis or uiarum curandarum is in better agreement with the chronology of Appius’ career. The family tree of the Claudii Pulchri reconstructed by Münzer is corrected as follows: the consul of 130 BCE would not be the son of the homonymous consul of 185 BCE (eldest son of Ap. Claudius Pulcher, consul in 212 BCE); he would be the grandson of the third son C. Claudius Pulcher, consul in 177 BCE.”
Some points that are very interesting to the numismatist:
1) If this is true, then the title triumvir aere argento auro flando feriundo goes all the way back to the mid second century.
2) We don’t have a named coinage from the right date stuck by a Claudius. Candidates for Appius issue would are limited and as follows:
The argument seems to hang on whether Cicero’s Verrines is proof he was praetor peregrinus.
C. Claudius Appi filius pulcher praetor de senatu cooptando leges conscriberet.
Brennan (2000: 237) is pretty certain about the timing of the creation of the title praetor repetundis and it is too late to be held by the cos. of 130…