I think the form of the column on this bronze issue can be productively used as comparative evidence for how numismatic artists thought to represent monolithic columns. The importance of the rendering of the shaft can be seen even on less well preserved specimens:
This is relevant for how we think about the rendering of the column on the early Minucian coins:
Evans in her 2011 paper originally presented at Glasgow congress emphasizes the uniqueness of the form of this column:
The form of the column itself also requires some comment, owing to its archaic-looking features. I can find no parallel to this type of column shaft in Greek, Etruscan or early Roman sources, nor can I find any early versions of rusticated column drums. (p.659)
She continues with a comparison to the column on the Marsyas coin (RRC 363) saying:
The shaft of the column can be shown as smooth, or fluted in a spiral or, on a small number of dies, with rounded drums with moldings between each drum. If this Marsyas depicts the statue of Marsyas in the Forum (as generally acknowledged), then the column shown is the Columna Maenia, erected in 338 (Plin. NH 34.20). Although the column shaft is not shown in a consistent fashion, when it is shown with rusticated drums, the die engraver may again be
referring to the early date of the column.
I cannot readily identify any specimens in trade or at the ANS or BM collections I would readily describe as rusticated or spiral (with the possible exception of Ghey, Leins & Crawford 2010 363.1.16). Finally she concludes that:
the shaft of the column injects a note of fantasy to the depiction
I cannot particularly agree, especially in light of the above bronzes. It seems to me that the articulated column shaft is one banal means of rendering a column on a coin. The shaft is a red herring in any argument for the historicity of the Minucian monument.