FrizzyAntoine

2. Mazaios Stater (Tarsos, 361-334 BCE) 2 Mazaios-converted.mp4 This is another type that has captivated me since I first started collecting, and this example once again ticks all the boxes. It really could have been my #1 type for the year, but the top coin is a fair bit rarer and just a tad cooler. Anyways, the obverse depiction of Ba’al – principal deity of the region and syncretic with Zeus – aside from being beautifully intricate, is also thought to be the inspiration for the reverse design of the immensely influential coinage of Alexander the Great. The clear Aramaic legends are a boon, and the way Ba’al’s sceptre protrudes outside the pearl border on the obverse is a wonderful touch – a sort of numismatic break in the Fourth Wall. The exact meaning of the reverse motif remains something of a mystery to me, one I will no doubt have to spend some time learning about in the coming year, but the artistry is easy enough to appreciate even if the deeper meaning remains elusive. Above the lion and his quarry is the name of the Satrap under whose authority this coin was issued, Mazaeus. He would leave Cilicia just before Alexander swept into Achaemenid Persia, taking up a position as satrap of Babylon shortly before the fortunes of the Achaemenids would irreversibly falter. He would remain in that position for a further 5 years, serving Alexander until his own death in 328 BCE, and interestingly enough some of his Babylonian coinage, such as the famous double-darics, would go on to emulate this and other Cilician types issued in his name – perhaps done in fond remembrance of yesteryear. 1. Baydad Tetradrachm (Istakhr, 3rd Century BCE) 1 Baydad-converted.mp4 An incredible type, and probably my favourite coin of the year from either list. There’s a lot to be said for this type, but it really does deserve a proper write-up of its own. The obverse bears a portrait of Baydad, who was Frataraka of Persis, a position that was effectively akin to kingship. On the reverse Baydad is shown sacrificing at a Zoroastrian fire temple, a deliberate choice speaking to the pushback against Greek dominion in much of the Eastern Hellenistic territories. I think the salient points concerning this coin are these: it’s a rather rare type, due to being commonly overstruck on other Hellenistic tetradrachms the portrait is usually a touch cruder, it depicts perhaps the finest treatment of a classically ‘Persian’ countenance in sublime Hellenistic style, and it signals the revival of Persianism in the old Achaemenid territories for the first time since the conquests of Alexander – a small sign of much greater things to come.

5. Mende Tetradrachm (450-425 BCE) 5 Mende-converted.mp4 A rare variety of an already uncommon type, the tetradrachms of Mende were not even close to being on my radar, and it wasn’t a type I anticipated I could afford anytime soon. So when the opportunity arose to have one in reasonably good shape and with an acceptable provenance to the 1980s [not much to write home about, but nonetheless lightyears ahead of ‘Collection of a Gentleman, formed before 2005’] I felt pretty lucky indeed. The obverse features Dionysos reclining sublimely on the back of a mule, musing over the last few drops of poetry at the bottom of his shakily-held cantharus. The control symbol is generally attributed as a grasshopper, though I admittedly have a tough time seeing it. The reverse bears the traditional ΜΕΝΔΑΙΟΝ legend and four bunches of grapes, alluding to the renowned wine which the city exported as far away as Magna Graecia. However, what makes this piece a real standout is the 16-pointed star at the very centre of the reverse design, replacing the more familiar grape vine, which is only known from a handful of examples. 4. Mithridates II Tetradrachm (Seleukeia on The Tigris, 119-109 BCE) 4 Mithridates-converted.mp4 A superb ‘Persian’ portrait, yet rendered in clearly ‘Greek’ style, this coin depicts perhaps the greatest of the Arsacid monarchs – Mithridates II ‘The Great’. Minted at Seleukeia on the Tigris around the turn of the 2nd century BCE – the imposing new capital Seleukos had founded nearly 2 centuries prior – this coin marked a changing of the guard. The longstanding dominion of Hellenic-origin dynasties in this region (and in general) such as the Seleukids and Ptolemies was waning, it had been for almost a century at this point, and a new empire based out of the Iranian Plateau was poised to reconquer the old Achaemenid heartlands. The portrait shows Mihrdad – the original Persian rendition of the name – sporting a long beard and dressed in an highly decorated traditional Parthian shirt called the Qamis (not unlike its modern successor Kameez, still worn in the region) and with a diadem placed upon his otherwise bare head. An interesting fusion of styles, with the Greek diadem of kingship and the clearly Persian attire. The reverse meanwhile shows a Parthian archer seated upon an omphalos, evoking the imagery of the perennial Seleukid reverse type featuring Apollo upon the omphalos. In this case, instead of Apollo wistfully inspecting and arrow, the archer is inspecting his bow – and given their historical prowess on the battlefield, I have a feeling that, unlike Apollo, this archer actually intends to make use of his hardware. The depiction of the archer also showcases more of the traditional Persian clothing style, with a fabric headdress and the all-important trousers being clearly depicted. Surrounding him are the titles of the king in Greek, which was the preferred numismatic language of the Arsacids, reading BAΣIΛEΩΣ MEΓAΛOY APΣAKOY EΠIΦANOYΣ , “Great King Arsakes, God Manifest". 3. Delphi Trihemiobol (479-470 BCE) 3 Delphi-converted.mp4 The Greek word for dolphins is ΔΕΛΦΙΣ, pronounced Delphis. It’s no coincidence then, that there happen to be three dolphins depicted on this coin, plastered onto both sides, and one gets the sense they must have been rather important to whatever place made this coin. The god Apollo is said to have taken the form of a dolphin from time to time, and there is even a story of him saving the lives of a group of stranded sailors, and bringing them to safety at a remote and rocky outcropping in the region of Phokis, in exchange for their devotion to him as priests of his new temple therein. Also present are a Ram on the obverse, and a Goat on the reverse. The spelling of the ethnikon used on this coin is not however ΔΕΛ, but rather ΔΑΛ, and I will be the first to admit I do not know ancient Greek dialects remotely well enough to explain why that is the case. But the name being represented is nonetheless the same – Delphai. I can think of few coins that better represent the spirit of Hellenism in the Classical world than a coin minted within the sacred precinct of Delphi itself. Then there’s the historical connection to consider – while the dating for this issue is a little spotty, there is general consensus it was made at some point during the 5th Century BCE. Given the stylistic and thematic similarities to the tridrachms, it is possible it is from the same issue of coinage or slightly later, which would mean it was likely made something 479-460 BCE. We know the coinage of Delphi sees a spike during this period, as spoils of war from the Greek victory at Plataea in 479 – which concluded the first epoch of the Greco-Persian Wars – were sent to the temple of Apollo to invoke his blessing. The very real possibility that this coin may have been struck from the Greek spoils of war captured from the army of Xerxes is tantalising at the very least, and might just make this my most historically significant coin to date (within a Hellenic context).

7. Ptolemy IV Tetradrachm (217 BCE) 7 Ptolemy Raphia-converted.mp4 7' Myndos-converted.mp4 This spot is actually going to be taken up by two coins, a splendid tetradrachm of Ptolemy IV, and a much humbler drachm from the small Carian poleis of Myndos. The tetradrachm is the nicer of the coins without a doubt, however it was the drachm that provided much of the impetus for purchasing the tetradrachm in the first place. They feature the headdress of the Goddess Isis on the reverse, with a rudimentary portrait of the god Serapis on the obverse in fairly generic Carian style not so different from Zeus or Asclepius. Yearning for one of those, I was immediately smitten with the jugate portraits on the Ptolemaic tetradrachm when it came up for sale, and featuring two of the most ancient and important deities of the Egyptian pantheon no less, so it became almost impossible to pass up, especially as I had been hunting for a Myndos drachm for over two years when I came across the Ptolemy IV. The notion of an Egyptian motif on a Greek coin was very interesting for me, and this coin features much nicer and less ambiguous portraits of both Isis and Serapis [a Hellenistic reimagining of Osiris and Apis], wearing their respective crowns. Serapis on both coins wears the Atef crown of Upper Egypt [a symbol of Osiris], while Isis on the tetradrachm wears the same horned headdress that is featured on the reverse of the drachm of Myndos. As you can see, I did in the end also find a drachm of Myndos later on this year, and the two coins make a perfect pairing. The prominent thunderbolt on the reverse of the Myndian drachm also seems to illustrate the soft power projected by the Ptolemies across this region of Asia Minor at the time, and can be seen on the coinage of other ports in the region throughout the Hellenistic era. I suppose that makes it no coincidence then that the cult of Serapis was deemed important enough to place centre-stage on the coinage of a city so far removed from Egypt itself. Delving deeper into the tetradrachm, the jugate busts also evoke the issues of Ptolemy IV’s predecessors, who issued extensive gold and silver issues with jugate busts. In that case however it was the royal couples themselves portrayed, whereas here it is clearly meant to be deities of the Hellenistic Egyptian pantheon. This serves a dual purpose; to suggest a parallel between the ruling gods Isis and Serapis with that of Ptolemy and his queen Arsinoe III, and to reinforce the notion that divine favour had smiled upon the Ptolemies and allowed them to overcome the Seleukids at Raphia. That of course, brings us to the historical milieu of this coin’s striking – it was made to celebrate the Ptolemaic victory at Raphia in 217 BCE, which delayed eventual Seleukid dominion over Coele Syria by a couple of decades, and dealt Antiochos III one of the greatest defeats. As such these coins can be seen as a form of domestic propaganda to show that Ptolemy IV's claim to Coele Syria held divine favour, and his power ran parallel to the gods themselves. 6. Bahram II Drachm (Ctesiphon, 276-293 CE) 6 Bahram-converted.mp4 As may be discernible from this list overall, I have been slowly drawn towards eastern coinage and themes more and more over the course of this year, and this is one of my absolute favourites so far. Most of the time a single well-rendered portrait is as much as we can ask for as collectors, so having 3 is a real treat. I am also smitten with the style of the portraits, as it reminisces more of the earlier portraits of Ardashir and Shahpur than many of the other dies for this same issue or those of later Sassanian monarchs, which seem to lose the individuality that makes 3rd century Sassanian coinage so enjoyable. The portraits, from left to right [which are also rendered with the illusion of depth, going front to back as well] are of Bahram himself, his queen Shapurdukhtak, and his son and future heir Bahram III. Bahram wears a crown with wings and a Korymbos, a globe studded with jewels, while his wife and son wear headdresses decorated with a Boar and Eagle, respectively. Note that the name Bahram can also be rendered as Vahrām, Varahran, and Wahram. The legends are rendered in Pahlavi script, and translates on the obverse as “Worshipper of Lord Mazda, God Bahram, King of Kings of the Iranians and Non-Iranians, who has lineage from the Gods”. The reverse meanwhile shows a Zoroastrian fire altar at which two attendants stand guard. Both are crowned, and the supposition is that it represents Bahram with his father and predecessor, the deceased king Bahram I, which makes sense as another issue of Bahram’s coinage features himself and his wife as guardians of the fire on the reverse. The reverse legend reads “Fire of Bahram”.

Well, here it is – the second half of my top coins list, which I sheepishly admit may be the better half overall. All of the coins (save one) are Greek (the odd man out is generally catalogued as ‘Greek’, but really falls into a category of its own historically and stylistically). As ever, please feel free to to share your thoughts and coins of your own. 11. Knidos Drachm (ca. 465-449 BCE) 11 Knidos-converted.mp4 While there are certainly aspects of the history of Knidos that interest me, many of these events do not occur until a century or more after this coin was made, such as the birth of Sostratus – designer of the great Pharos of Alexandria. Aside from these, there really is very little to distinguish the city from many of her contemporaries spattered across the Aegean during the Classical era. So why bother getting a coin of this city in the first place? Well, the artistic merit of the city’s early engravers, a few of them at any rate, speaks for itself. The tetradrachms are iconic, and have perhaps the best rendition of a lion anywhere in the numismatic corpus. As for the drachms, well I’ve been deadest on obtaining an example with this specific reverse portrait die for a short while now, however I’ve always had a tough time justifying it given the plethora of far more historically interesting types out there – many of them also artistically well-executed – and the rather high prices these tend to command at auction. I actually got close on this very coin at the start of the year when it was offered by Stacks as part of the Salton collection, so when it made its way back into the auction circuit a few months later I was very pleased to obtain it for less than the January hammer. The reverse portrait is of Aphrodite, and the rendition is a wonderful fusion of archaic and classical art styles, giving a distinctly stern yet pleasant expression, with braided hair and a stephane, surrounded by ethnikon ΚΝΙ. 10. Dyrrhachion Stater (350-300 BCE) 10 Dyrrhachion-converted.mp4 Just one on a long list of Greek cities that happen to be better-known for the Roman battle than the town after which it takes its name, Dyrrhachion, latinised as Dyrrhachium, was the site of Caesar’s closest call when he met the forces of Pompey in 48 BCE. The city itself was founded sometime in the 7th Century BCE and also known by the name Epidamnos, though they seemed to have preferred using Dyrrhachion as this is the abbreviation used on their coinage. The motif used by the city is that of a cow suckling its calf, sometimes with a control symbol such as a bee in the margins. This may have had a correlation to the preferred name, which may derive from the term used in Illyria for a young animal, and seems quite plausible seeing as it’s far from the only numismatic pun floating around at the time. The reverse features two stars arranged within a double-border, with the city ethnikon and a club rounding off the design. I bought this coin mostly because the opportunity presented itself, and I rather like the rendition of the cow and her calf. There are plenty of coins that glorify power, attempt to imbue prestige, or evoke violence in some way. This seems quite the opposite – no angry lions, sharpened spears, deadly archers or vengeful gods. Just a humble cow at peace, nurturing its young calf. Whatever the motivation for the motif, it certainly stands out. And it doesn’t hurt that it’s in quite good shape for the type, and ended up having an undisclosed pre-UNESCO provenance to boot. 9. Ptolemy I Tetradrachm (Alexandria, 311-305 BCE) 9 Ptolemy Elephant-converted.mp4 Who doesn’t love a good elephant-scalp headdress? This is perhaps one of the most iconic issues from the ancient world – a portrait of Alexander himself, having attained the stature of a god and wearing the hide, not of a lowly lion or leopard, but of a gargantuan elephant itself. On the reverse we have an embodiment of war and wisdom in the goddess Athena, perhaps alluding to the strange amalgamation of both qualities in the erstwhile conqueror of worlds. The graffito also adds an interesting element to the coin, and while I have yet to decipher it, I would love to know what it says and why someone took the time to etch it in so clearly. On top of that, the elegant and calm portrait composition is a definite bonus, as was the rather palatable price seeing as the market seems to have gone crazy for these coins recently. 8. Carthage Shekel (Carthage, ca. 300-260 BCE) 8 Carthage-converted.mp4 No ‘Top 10’ list would be complete without a nod to the Carthaginians. As with most pre-roman coins, it can be quite tough to pinpoint an exact date, or even a narrow range, for when a coin was minted. This type is generally though to have been issued in the lead-up to the 1st Punic War, anytime starting ca. 310 BCE through to a late-date for mintage being sometime during the early stages of the war ca. 264-255 BCE. The obverse bears a portrait of Tanit, patron deity of Carthage, while the reverse showcases a proud Carthaginian warhorse, standing proudly before a lone date-palm. This motif had been employed on the coinage of Carthage for well over a century at this point, especially those coins minted at the city itself. Of import is that while most silver coinage minted by the Carthaginian Empire at this time and in the years preceding it was for the pay of Greek mercenaries and struck to the Attic standard, this coin is equivalent to the Phoenician shekels of the era, weighing roughly 7.2 grams. This suggests it was intended for payment of Carthaginian soldiers or merchants, and the type is generally understood to have been minted at the city of Carthage rather than at military mints in Punic Sicily.

Thank you John! I hadn't realised there was a hoard of the dinars but you seem to be spot-on, looking at acsearch seems quite a few popped up around 2017-2018. I've heard good things about Ertugral but not sure I have the stamina for nearly 500 episodes, maybe one day! Indeed, most of the more salicious stories (poisonings, incest, and the like) are fabrication. Though they must have still gotten down in the mud with everyone else to get as far as they did in the cutthroat game of renaissance politics. Thank you! I store most of these in either Quadrum capsules or Abafil trays, and filming can be a little nerve-wracking. But video feels like the best medium overall to really capture that in-hand feel of a coin, so I've been slowly experimenting with it for a couple years now.

Thank you all! I really appreciate the comments, and hope everyone has a great holiday season!

And the best for last........... 2. Basil II & Constantine VIII Histamenon (Constantinople, 977-989 CE) 2 Basil Constantine Histamenon-converted.mp4 There are a number of major motivations for collecting Byzantine coinage – history, religion, and even artistic merit (or often lack thereof). I was primarily motivated by the artistry of this piece, which like many coins of the pre-modern era features motifs motivated by religion, and also manages to encapsulate an interesting piece of history. The obverse takes care of the religious and artistic aspects rather handily, with a beautiful depiction of the Christ Pantokrator, among the most widespread and well-known icons of the Orthodox church, surrounded by a legend declaring ☩·IҺS·XIS·RЄX·RЄGNANTIҺM, "Jesus Christ, King of Kings". I’ll admit, I’m not normally a fan of these coins, as frontal portraits are notoriously difficult to execute effectively, and this region hadn’t really been renowned for its numismatic artistry in nearly half a millennium. However, this portrait might just convince me that the engravers of Byzantium could go toe-to-toe with their counterparts of antiquity when the mood hit. The reverse meanwhile is imbued with much of the historicity of this piece, bearing the dual portraits of the co-emperors Basil [proper name Basileus] II ‘Bulgaroktonos’ [“Bulgar Slayer”] and his brother and eventual successor Constantine VIII ‘Porphyrogenitus’ [“Born Into The Purple”], who are shown carrying a Patriarchal Cross, a variant of the more familiar Latin Cross with a second, smaller crossbeam above the main one. Of the two brothers, Basil is depicted with a sterner expression and a short beard signifying his status as the elder brother and elder stateman. This attention to detail is borne out in the costume worn by each brother as well, with Basil wearing the Loros, a highly formal and ceremonial dress reserved for the Imperial family and based on the ancient triumphal attire of the Roman consuls of old. Constantine meanwhile wears the Chlamys, a less formal and less exclusive dress whose origins lay in a style of large cape worn in Greece since the Archaic period. An important distinction, as Basil ranks amongst the greatest [and longest-reigning] emperors of Byzantine history and counts amongst his achievements the establishment of the Varangian Guard, Christianisation of the Kievan Rus, and the re-establishment of a Byzantine frontier along the Danube after an absence of some 4 centuries, while Constantine would only rule in his own right for 3 short years and lay the seeds for the inevitable decline of the empire over the ensuing century. The reverse legend reads ☩·bASIL·C·COҺSTAҺTI·b·R, an abbreviation for ☩·bASILЄIΟS·CΑΙ·COҺSTAҺTIҺΟS·bASILЄIS·ROMAIOҺ, "Basil [Basileus] and Constantine, Kings of The Romans". 1. Augustus ‘AEGYPTO CAPTA’ Denarius (Pergamon or Ephesos, 725 AVC / 28 BCE) 1 Aegypto Capta-converted.mp4 It feels fitting that this year’s top spot goes to the original Princeps himself, and much like the man, this coin truly is primum inter pares for me this year. Imbued with amazing historical significance, a beautiful portrait of fine Eastern style, and perfectly highlighting the masterful way in which Augustus utilised coinage as a medium for the dissemination of state propaganda, this coin really does have it all. The AEGYPTO CAPTA denarii were issued sometime shortly after Octavian’s victory at Actium and the subsequent triumph and annexation of Egypt, likely minted a short while after these events. There are two separate versions of this type, one minted in Italy (likely Brundusium, shortly after the well-known ‘Actian’ types) and the other minted at either Ephesos or Pergamon, two of the greatest cities of Asia Minor. The design is mostly the same across the types, with the main difference being the style of the portrait and the use of control symbols – a flagellum in Italy [likely to reassert legitimacy as he was a member of the College of Pontiffs] and a Capricorn in Asia [just beneath the neck truncation of the bust], with the Capricorn being the zodiac sign of Augustus and closely associate with depictions of him across the Eastern territories [it would also help that certain versions of the foundational myth of the Capricorn involved an Egyptian origin, being transformed in the waters of the Nile]. The reverse style also differs, and in my opinion the Eastern ones win out on both sides, especially the obverse, as I do rather love the fierceness of the Italian-rendition crocodiles [it’s one of the few types where I’d be more than open to having a duplicate]. The obverse has the usual niceties legitimating the rule of Augustus, referring to him as CAESAR·DIVI·F·COS·VI, "Caesar, Son of the Divine, in his Sixth Consulship". The reverse meanwhile is most definitely the star of the show on this type. Yes, there are plenty of animals on ancient coins; lions, elephants, horses, snakes, eagles, even rabbits and seahorses abound. But a Nile Crocodile, amongst the most fearsome creatures on planet Earth, is a real treat, even moreso as in this case it was chosen as the ideal personification of Egypt to be conveyed to the Roman populace – powerful, exotic, and fierce, yet nonetheless brought to heel by the might of Rome, and importantly, lest anyone should forget, Augustus. The legend is commensurate and in keeping with the beautifully succinct numismatic laconicisms for which Augustus is known: AEGYPTO CAPTA, “Egypt is Captured”, signifying in no uncertain terms that the Ptolemaic kingdom of Egypt had been conquered by the Roman state and was now to become the personal property of the Princeps. No need to complicate matters further – Antony and Cleopatra have been dealt with, the grain supply is secured so no Roman will ever starve again, and there will be no more trouble from the East for years to come.

6. Lucius Hostilius Saserna Denarius (Rome, 707 AVC / 46 BCE) 6 Vercingetorix-converted.mp4 A face only a mother – or indeed a numismatist – could love. The fearsome countenance displayed on the obverse of this type is generally held to be a relatively veristic portrait of Vercingetorix. The features of the portrait are consistent across the series, and match up with the generalisation of the Gauls held by the Roman populace, and are in keeping with the depiction of other powerful Roman enemies on coinage, such as Philip V of Macedon. Add to that the fact that he was held captive in Rome at the time, awaiting his ceremonial execution as part of the Triumph, and a strong case starts to form for the identity of the fierce Gaul. After all, isn’t the defeat of a fearsome and powerful enemy all the more glorious for Rome? At any rate, these coins were minted around the time of Julius Caesar’s triumph of 46 BCE, celebrating victory in the recently-concluded Pompeian civil war, but doing so under the ostensible veneer of proclaiming his successes in the decade long Bellum Gallicum. The reverse features a Celtic chariot, propelled by two agile horses and with a spear-hurling warrior standing poised for combat on the rear platform – these types of chariots had been used in warfare since the Bronze age, and were still regularly used in combat across Gaul and Britannia at the time of this coins striking. 5. Juba II and Ptolemy Denarius (Caesaraea, 763-764 AVC / 10-11 CE) 5 PTolemy of Mauretania-converted.mp4 This coin encapsulates nothing less than the end of an era. The Hellenistic era, to be a touch more precise. This is one of the many interesting types of denarii issued by King Juba II of Mauretania, a Numidian prince whose father was allied with the Pompeian cause in Africa and committed suicide shortly after their defeat at Thapsus. Juba however would himself come to be a close personal friend of Augustus, and was rewarded with the prosperous kingdom of Mauretania, encompassing much of modern Morocco and Algeria. The obverse of this coin shows Juba as Herakles, and is accompanied by the legend REX·IVBA, "King Juba". It’s a portrait in good style and with an interesting motif for the time and place, however the reverse is where things really get interesting though. While many of these types copy late republican denarii or various types issued by Augustus, the reverse of this coin features another portrait, of yet another Mauretanian prince – Juba’s son and successor, Ptolemy. The legend on the reverse, while mostly off flan on this example, reads R·XXXVI, "Regnal Year 36", which indicates it was minted around 11 CE when Ptolemy would have been a young man a little over 20 years old. Ptolemy would become co-ruler alongside his father nearly a decade later, and then succeed him as sole ruler of Mauretania when Juba passed away in either 23 or 24 CE, ruling in his own right for another 16 years until his raving mad cousin Caligula – with whom I’m sure we’re all quite well acquainted – would invite him to Rome out of the blue one day in 40 CE before murdering him for no good reason and confiscating his wealth, making Mauretania a province under direct roman governance in the process. Importantly, Ptolemy was the son of Juba and Cleopatra Selene, the daughter of Mark Antony and Cleopatra VII. This makes him the last member of the Ptolemaic bloodline to wear the diadem of kingship, and so the death of Ptolemy of Mauretania would mark the passing of the final monarch descended of the Diadochi, being a direct descendant of Ptolemy I, son of Lagus, who had founded the most enduring of the Hellenistic dynasties more than 3 centuries earlier. 4. Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia) Grosso (Rome, 1492-1503 CE) 4 Alexander Sixtus-converted.mp4 Rodrigo Borgia is one of those historical head-scratchers. A Spanish cleric whose uncle managed to unexpectedly wrest the papacy from the clutches of the Italian gentry, and a generation later his young nephew would wind up sealing the deal by blackmailing and bribing his way onto the throne of Saint Peter. The loving father of at least 5 children (and perhaps over a dozen) with at least 3 mistresses (including at least one during his tenure as Pope), the parallels between Alexander VI (his pontifical name) and most modern Pope’s are scant. He made war on the Neapolitans by allying with the French and imploring them to invade Naples, then flipped allegiance when Charles VIII of France took him up on the suggestion, forming the Holy League to bring the Spanish into the conflict, all while covering it with the veneer of one final holy crusade to be carried out against the Ottoman Turks (with whom he enjoyed relatively friendly relations, who he even called upon for aid when Charles invaded, oh and did I mention he held the Sultan Bayezid II’s brother as a hostage in return for an annual stipend so large that his predecessor Innocent VIII had used it to construct the Sistine Chapel itself). Of course, in the end he allied with the French again, marrying his son Cesare to a French princess in return for aid in subduing the great houses of the Romagna. He also issued the Papal Bull Inter Caetera, among others, which formalised the claims of the Spanish crown to ownership of much of the Americas, implicitly giving them the authority to enslave and abuse the local indigenous populace under the pretext of spreading Christianity and bringing about their salvation. He made Cesare a cardinal at only 18, and when that didn’t pan out, he gave him command of the Papal armies, something he excelled at to the point where Machiavelli uses his story as a fundamental example in The Prince. Unfortunately, the fortunes of the family waned almost as fast as they had waxed, when Alexander VI died unexpectedly in August of 1503, and his long-time rival Guiliano della Rovere shortly succeeded him as Pope Julius II. The story of the Borgia family is a perfect embodiment of the wild and heady days of the Italian Renaissance, and so having a coin from a key player of the period is a real thrill for me. Oh, and did I mention Jeremy Irons does an incredible job of playing Rodrigo Borgia in the TV series The Borgias (historical inaccuracies notwithstanding it really is worth a watch). As for the coin, it shows the Borgia coat of arms with their signature bull, above this are the keys to the Vatican, themselves surmounted by the Papal Tiara. The reverse meanwhile showcases the saints Peter and Paul, and bears a small flower as the symbol of the mint-master Pietro Paolo della Zecca, with the exergual legend ROMA denoting it was minted in the city of Rome itself. The coin is tariffed as a Grossus Denarius, worth 12 deniers/pennies, and weighs about the same as a denarius from the 2nd Century CE – suffice it to say the city was by now quite a long ways from the golden days of the Caesars. 3. Faustina Minor Sestertius (Rome, 900-904 AVC / 147-151 CE) 3 Faustina-converted.mp4 There’s not much I can say here, as this coin basically speaks for itself. Where Greek portraiture is often more superficially beautiful, the portraits found on Roman bronzes of the 2nd Century really do take the cake when it comes to realism. Even modern dies, cut with pinpoint precision, fail to capture the quintessence of vitality with which engravers of the Antonine age were able to so effortlessly imbue their subjects. Mind you, not all dies have that intangible spark, but those that do really are in a class of their own. It explains why a masterfully rendered sestertius of Hadrian was for quite a while the most expensive ancient coin ever sold. While my humble Faustina pales in comparison to such masterpieces, I can’t help but feel as though I’m staring at a renaissance masterpiece in miniature, and not simply a piece of currency.

It’s that time of the year again, and once more it has been an incredible year numismatically, and one that I am extremely thankful for. I’ve decided to do two Top 10 lists overall, this one for Roman and ‘Other’ pre-modern coins, and a separate one for Greek coins which I will upload in the coming days. I did this as I suppose it’s a fairer representation of my collection overall, and there are often vast differences in artistry and history between Greek and Roman coins that I find difficult to compare directly. I also failed to narrow the list down to 10, so this is actually going to be 11, as is the Greek list, which I guess really makes it the ‘Top 22 of 2022’. Both lists also underwent an innumerable number of shuffles and reshuffles as I tried to reflect on why I had picked each coin and how each one fits in my collection. As always, please feel free to share your thoughts, and similar coins of your own! So, without further ado, here they are: 11. Yusuf ibn Ayyub Fals (Damascus, 585 AH / 1189-90 CE) 11 Salah al-Din-converted.mp4 One of the few Islamic rulers who is popularly recognised in the European tradition, and in a positive light no less, is Yusuf ibn Ayyub. Known by the epithet of Salah al-Din, roughly translating as “Righteous of The Faith”, and latinised as Saladin. He has come to embody the pinnacle of chivalry in western literary canon, and romances of the crusades abound with tales of Saladin and Richard I “the Lionheart”, two noble adversaries locked in a bitter ideological conflict yet possessing boundless respect for one another. The two great princes of Christendom and Islam would not meet until early in 1191 CE, however their fateful encounter was sealed by the events of autumn 1187 CE, when Salah al-Din captured the city of Jerusalem after a siege of some two weeks. This, coupled with the immediately antecedent Crusader disaster of Hattin, sparked calls for the 3rd Crusade, which while being far from the last crusade, was the last time a series of large-scale major military engagements would be fought between the warring sides over the city of Jerusalem itself. The city would remain under the dominion of a variety of Islamic nations for the ensuing 730 years until the British Mandate of 1917, and the subsequent Israeli occupation. Interestingly, even Dante, writing much closer to the events at hand and at a time when the crusading spirit was only just beginning to wane, accords Salah al-Din a place in the ranks of Limbo alongside righteous pagans such as Homer and Brutus, who he feels would have adopted Christianity had it been present in their time. This, despite the fact that Dante would have known well the role Salah al-Din played in the eventual demise of the Crusader states, and the fact that he was in direct conflict with Christian armies for much of his reign. Certainly an interesting display of admiration on his part at least, and perhaps an indication of the more widespread benevolent public sentiment felt towards Saladin in mediaeval Europe. As for this coin, it was minted in the ancient city of Damascus at a time when Salah al-Din was at the height of his power, a short while after his conquests in the Levant, and before he came to blows with Richard’s crusaders. It’s also a rather large coin, being 25mm across, which is perfect as it makes the calligraphy very easily legible. While silver and gold coins of Salah al-Din do feature his name, it can sometimes be difficult to read as it forms only a small portion of the calligraphy. In this case however, the central legend is his name, with the obverse and reverse respectively reading “Al-Malik, An-Nasir” The King, The Helper of Victory, “Yusuf ibn Ayyub” Yusuf/Joseph son of Ayyub/Job. 10. Julius Caesar Denarius (Military mint accompanying Caesar in Italy, 704-705 AVC / 49-48 BCE) 10 Caesar Elephant'.mp4 While there’s much that can be said about this coin, I feel like most of it has already been said many times over, and most here will know the history surrounding this piece quite well, better than I can articulate it at any rate. The later years of the Roman Republic is one of my favourite periods of history, and in many ways shares stark and sobering parallels to our own time, so a coin that encapsulates the crux of the Republican civil wars had to make this list. Suffice it to say that this type had been on my watchlist as a key “Must Have” since I first started collecting, and this year at last the stars aligned on an example with a clear, full legend and an elephant rendered in pleasant, not overtly cartoonish style. 9. Quintus Caepio Marcus Junius Brutus Denarius (Military mint accompanying Brutus in Lycia, Summer of 713 AVC / 42 BCE) 9 Lycian Brutus-converted.mp4 I’ll be the first to admit, it’s strange that a fourrée has made it onto the list. But this is a fourrée of impeccable style, of a rare issue, and in generally quite good shape still. More importantly, as this particular fourrée shares an obverse die with genuine, fully-silver coins of the same series (my far-from-exhaustive search did not turn up any reverse die-matches, though the style is uncannily close to the known official reverse dies as well). It has been postulated that such military mints produced fourrée coinage in an official capacity when supplies of silver ran low, likely done in order to mollify restless troops who did not particularly feel like risking life and limb for ideological whimsies at a time of extreme political turbulence. Supporting this notion are the widespread nature of fourrée military issues from during the Imperatorial period, and the thoroughly studied issue of Quintus Cornuficius from the same time period. Even Crawford concedes this possibility on Page 560 of RRC. Taken together, this suggests to me that this coin was an official product of the mint accompanying Brutus in Lycia over the course of the spring and summer of 42 BCE, as he prepared to meet Octavian and Antony in the field to decide the fate of the Republic. 8. Kay Ka'us II, Qilich Arslan IV, & Kay Qubadh II Dinar (Konya, 647-657 AH / 1249-1259 CE) 8 Seljuk 3 Brothers-converted.mp4 Minted in central Anatolia by an offshoot of the original Great Seljuk empire, the self-styled Sultanate of Rum held sway over much of Anatolia from the late 11th Century onwards following the Battle of Manzikert – lands that had been considered part of the heartland of the Roman Empire (more properly the successor Eastern Roman / Byzantine Empire). They remained in control of these regions until the rising tide of the Mongols finally reached their lands in the 1240s. This dinar was issued at Konya, the capital of their empire, by a coalition of 3 brothers who were vassals of the Great Khan over the 2 decades following their father Kay Khusraw II’s defeat at the hands of the Mongol general Baiju in 1243 at the Battle of Köse Dağ, where the Seljuk sultan and his army fell prey to the signature feigned retreat tactic. Despite the history at play, my primary driver for purchasing this dinar was the superbly rendered calligraphy, which fills up a rather broad flan at ~25mm across, making it a joy to behold in-hand. 7. Roman Republican Victoriatus (Luceria, 542-545 AVC / 211-208 BCE) 7 Lucerian Victoriatus-converted.mp4 An interesting type made at the height of the 2nd Punic War, one of the most pivotal conflicts in the history of the Mediterranean world, I knew I had to get one of these eventually. But the issue for me was always that the portraiture and general artistry of this series seems to vary wildly, and is often not all that good. The recent *gasp* “hoard” (I don’t want to think too deeply about where all these pristine examples have come from suddenly) helped to bring prices in line with what felt fair for something like this, and I was able to find this example being offered by a dealer who doesn’t specialise in ancients, and therefore didn’t care that this obverse die is of wonderful style and rather tough to find even with the flood of new examples on the market (and is usually attracts a higher premium as a result). The reverse imagery depicts Victory crowning a trophy of arms, signalling good times are ahead with the Roman pushback against Hannibal in Italy and simultaneous gains in Hispania, to say nothing of the successes in Sicily – the flashpoint of the First Punic War. The obverse meanwhile has a bust of Jupiter, fitting as the chief deity of the Roman Pantheon and therefore one of the chief architects of their successes.

Incredible selection, I usually gloss over medal listings, but your Charles II and Charlotte have me rethinking that approach! Congrats on a great year!

I certainly agree, and I would hold the same viewpooint even if I had the budget to buy this coin, which I think is likely to sell for more than a million dollars. However I can understand if someone has a net worth in the billions of dollars, as a few prominent collectors of ancients do, and decides to bid. At that point the value tied up in this coin becomes relatively inconsequential for them. And seeing as this is the only example to come to market in quite literally a century, if they want one they're extremely unlikely to ever get another chance at owning one. May as well take the risk in buying an unprovenanced rarity, store it discreetly at a freeport with your other "grey" holdings, and sit back and enjoy. Depending on where they keep the coin and where they reside, it's possible there may not even be a way for Italian authorites to have the coin returned. While I admire CNG and love them as an auction house, I'm personally not so sure. NAC for example lists when a coin has export permissions from the country of origin even for relativley low-value coins in the hundreds of Francs. CNG too lists provenance even for low-value coins in e-sales, so the lack of anything in the listing of this coin is rather telling. And seeing as they will allow individuals who are most certainly never going to be able to buy the coin to hold the coin itself, I doubt they would then only disclose export paperwork and provenance to vetted bidders (I have a friend who was allowed to hold it and take pictures at a coin show recently, and the coin looks absolutely stunning in hand! Though there's a 0% chance my friend could ever be considered a qualified bidder for this coin at present). Even the most reputable auction houses have been found to sell illegally excavated coins lacking export permissions. One example that springs to mind is the case of the Alexander Dekadrachms. However a UK-based auction house was involved in that case, and is somehow even still regarded as reputable by many buyers despite that fiasco and the thousands of similarly unprovenanced coins they regularly sell with flimsy or outright false provenances. In the case of the dekadrachms even the pre-UNESCO 1967 provenance some of the coins had was found to be a forgery, however that was created by the dealer who consigned them rather than the auction house. As for CNG, they and Nomos were the sellers of the infamous Cabinet W collection from Dr. Arnold Weiss - a group of similarly rare and extremely valuable coins from Italy with no provenance that were to be sold at a January feature sale. If memory serves, in that case I think Dr. Weiss made trouble for himself and CNG by telling an undercover FBI agent at a coin show that the coins had to be real as they were just recently excavated in Italy. Failing that rather foolishly arrogant blunder on his part, it's quite possible those coins would have sold without a hitch and been deposited in the collections of the same sort of people that will end up purchasing this coin. I may just be cynical, but I think the allure of likely $225,000+ in buyers fees is the most logical explanation. It's enough to pay the annual salaries of multiple employees, so why bother about legalities when the likelihood of enforcement is so low, and the return is both immediate and massive. It's the same reason every auction house, CNG included, sells massive quantities of coins obviously found in recent hoards (for example the hundreds of Kyrene didrachms sold over the past 2 years at CNG, very very few with provenance, all with similar wear and surfaces, and all coming from a source country where their export is illegal).

Hardly strange, if anything the lack of provenance rather makes sense if the coin is a recent find, which is entirely possible. As for publication of the find, given the stringent laws around ownership and export of such artefacts in Italy - the most likely place for it to have been found - I can understand why someone might have decided against reporting to the authorities or publishing their discovery, given the significant pecuniary incentive at play. That's not to say the coin is looted, it may well have all the required export paperwork in order, but in general such "unsavoury" things do occur rather frequently when it comes to artefacts, including coins.

Great selection! The standouts for me are 3, 6, and 8, but not by much. Congrats on a great year!

After reading through the paper I remain thoroughly unconvinced. In fact, I am more sure than ever that the Sponsianus is a fake. The other "barbarous" coins from the assemblage are clearly not genuine. These are the gordian III, Philip I, and plautius plancus comparison coins supposedly found alongside the sponsianus can be seen in Figure 2 under the "Coins of the Wider Assemblage" heading, which JayAg47 linked in his comment. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0274285 At best those are very crude barbarous imitations, and that's a stretch. It seems much more likely that they are cast fakes. As such, determining that the characteristics of the sponsianus match those of other fakes simply proves that it, too, is a fake. As for the genuine Aureii, they did in fact use (at least one) genuine coin as a comparator. I've linked the figure where it appears below. However it is only partially pictured, while the other Philip aureus they claim to have used in the analysis is not to be found in the article. Notwithstanding the veracity of the comparators, whether the Gordian III aureus was used or the barbarous/fake aureii, I think the logic that similar deposits can only be due to similar time spent in the soil seems flimsy, and is not backed up in a meaningful way by the authors. When it comes to discussion of the results, the authors note differences between the pattern and composition of the deposits on the genuine coins and the sponsian group, such as a lack of high-point deposits on the genuine gordian aureus while the Sponsian has deposits even at the highest point of the relief. The authors even acknowledge potential ways in which a forger could have accounted for the similarities in the surface scratches, the one feature which they seem to cling to most strongly as supporting their assertion of the sponsianus aureus' antiquity. And yet, they acknowledge that a well-known forger (Becker) simulated such wear in his forgeries. It's not as if natural wear cannot be hastened by simply speeding up the component processes artifically - if a purse containing dozens of coins is shaken vigorously for a few hours it stands to reason that the wear pattern would be quite similar to a coin that spent a far longer period of time subject to the same stressors infrequently - 100shakes/minute over the course of an hour would then simulate the same natural wear as 10shakes/day over 40 years, making a century's worth of wear the work of a single afternoon (all random numbers, but I believe they illustrate my point well enough). Yet despite these gaping holes in the argument for the Sponsianus' authenticity, in the conclusion the authors nonetheless about-face and dispel any notion that the Sponsianus coin could have been fake. This seems to be based solely on their opinion that it's unlikely a forger could have done the aforementioned things required to generate a "convincing" forgery. Among the more incredulous statements is the authors' belief that a forger could only have made all the coins at one point in time and from the exact same alloy. As this is not the case for the "barbarous" fakes, whose metal compositions vary between roughly 1 and 6% silver and ~1% copper (the remainder of course being gold), the authors' surmise that the only logical explanation is that the coins must have been created in separate batches, furthering their position with the supposition that a forger could not have made all these coins are separate points in time, nor could they have used differing alloys when making multiple forgeries in a single batch. Thus, (we are oh-so-erronously told) the coins must indeed be real.... since they were allegedly made in separate batches at differing times. As if a singular forger couldn't use gold from different sources to create multiple cast fakes all at once!??!?? To top if off, the article concludes with the laughably ridiculous notion that the official who declared these finds as genuine back in 1713 could not possibly have done so in error. This, the authors assert, is due to his position as Minister of Finance in charge of mines and metals, which one supposes must have made him magically immune to confidence artists!?????? The conclusions of the article are utter hogwash, and I feel the authors may themselves be aware of this fact. In all, it is quite poorly conducted research in my opinion, and seems that the authors were more interested in generating a flashy headline and some publicity for themselves than in properly investigating the matter. The flurry of news articles in major publications, the BBC among them, seems to only further reinforce this idea. The bottom line for me is this: good and bad research papers exist in every field - one needn't look further than the Wakefield paper (which linked the MMR vaccine to autism) for proof, and that one managed to slip through into the BMJ! This paper conjures similar doubts in my mind, and the fact that it was published in PlosOne, a journal that isn't exactly known for rigorous standards of peer-review, only cements my view.

I tend to bid live at feature sales and usually bid right before closing on timed e-auctions as long as the time difference isn't too atrocious for a given sale (with the caveat that I mostly only bid on greek and roman republic stuff, if I was into Byzantine it would be a whole other story!) Ah, a rookie mistake. (Kidding, of course!) While I feel the extra reflexivity and control afforded by being awake to see what's getting bids and what's selling cheaply has definitely helped, and has allowed me to win a number of coins I wouldn't have otherwise, it's not nearly enough to justify being awake at 3am if I did have to be awake at 7 for work. When the lot I want is at an especially gnarly time then I follow your strategy of bidding before bed, with a pretty similar results. Depends on a number of factors, the biggest one being the customer base of the auction. Some auctions get small number of bidders or bidders who bid frugally, others attract wealthy buyers, and others still attract those with little knowledge of prices. The last two tend to end up with higher hammers. Personally I try to use the past sale price of the coin I'm bidding on (if it has a sales record on acsearch) as well as a comparison to similar coins at major auctions in the past 5-10 years to determine the "market" value, and bid accordingly. In some cases a coin sells for 1/3 of what it did 5 years ago simply because it went from a feature sale at a well-regarded firm like NAC to being sold in an e-auction at a relatively unknown firm. I'd bet if you/your heirs sell the same coin at a NAC feature again you'll probably get the original NAC hammer or more, while the previous owner/his heirs just got unlucky selling at the wrong place. Another caveat in all this is the cost/price bracket of the coin to begin with. If you buy a $3000 coin for $1000 you almost certainly have scored a bargain, if you buy a $30 coin for $10 it is possible you'll have a hard time getting $30 for it when it comes time to sell, though IMO it's still a good purchase.

While I'm quite partial to @Prieure de Sion's suggested methods, I use the relatively unconventional combo of a wrench and screwdriver myself (a hammer would do the same, I just prefer a wrench). I made a short tutorial on how to do it a little while back as a joke... https://imgur.com/gallery/bSiVAYe

Here's a coin I picked up without knowing it was a plate - I just liked the style and that it's an uncommon cilician type depicting Ba'al and Herakles. Turns out it's also the plate for this type in SNG Levante. Issuing Authority: Achaemenid Empire, Satrapy of CiliciaDate of Issue: 400-385 BCEMint: IssosObverse: Ba'al standing facing left, holding eagle in outstretched right hand and sceptre in left; aramaic letters ך ז in lower left field.Reverse: Herakles standing facing right, resting club by his side in right hand, pelt of Nemean lion draped over left arm, grasping bow in left hand.Weight: 10.46 gDiameter: 21mmAxis: 12hDenomination: Stater (Cilician)Provenance: Ex CNG eAuction 472, Lot 116 (2020); CNG eAuction 452, Lot 382 (2019); CNG Mail Bid Sale 64, Lot 307 (2003); Plate Coin 174 in 'Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Switzerland I. Levante-Cilicia' by Edoardo Levante (1986)

Papal States Rodrigo Borgia, as Pope Alexander VI Rome, 1492-1503 CE Obverse: Papal tiara and crossed keys above Borgia coat of arms. Legend reading "ALEXANDER VI PONT MAX" Reverse: Saint Peter and Saint Paul standing facing forward, carrying a sword and 2 manuscripts. Legend reading "S PETRVS S PAVLVS". Exergual legend "ROMA". Grosso, 27mm, 3.20 g Next: Something minted East of the Tigris

I can wholeheartedly recommend quadrums, They work perfect for anything upto a drachm/denarius in size, and sometimes a stater/didrachm if it's low relief, tho I usually keep those in a separate abafil personally. I buy the capsules with blank inserts, so there's no preset cutout of any size. I then open it up, place the coin onto the insert in the position I plan to display it within the quadrum. Then I use a 0.5mm mechanical pencil to punch holes into the foam around the outline of the coin. I'm quite careful with the pencil, but even so the graphite is very soft and chemically inert and removes easily so no worries if you do touch the edge by accident. At that point I use a pair of small crafting scissors to punch into the foam somewhere along the outline, and cut out the remainder of the outline from that point, so that I don't have to cut from the edge of the foam inwards and thereby reduce the regidity of the foam. At that point it's easy, just press the coin into the custom cutout and it's sitting happy in the capsule.

I agree with the rest of your post, but I feel like this gripe is a little unfair (tho I definitely still find it annoying as a buyer!). As a normal business like any other auction houses have to make something in order to stay afloat and continue offering their services. The margins are pretty low in the numismatic business compared to some other sectors, considering the consigner is the one who pockets the entire hammer price of the coin, minus a small fee (usually 10%, but depending on the size and quality of the consignment it might be as little as 0 or even -5%, where the auction pays for the privelage of selling that collector's coins!). That means their revenue comes mostly from buyers fees, and those are usually 20%, maybe 22-25%, which leaves them at most 30-35% margins to run their business. That means if a coin hammers at $1000, you pay $1200, the consignor gets $900, and the auction has $300 left over to spend on their operations - which include hosting a website, taking pictures, cataloguing coins, employing staff to respond to emails, ship coins, manage accounts, procure consignments, and all the other boring stuff, and still having something left over so that the proprietor can make a living for himself too. Now, I can't speak for you, but personally if it weren't for the service offered by auction houses posting their sales online I would have no way to access or purchase coins outside my local area, which means I would have no coins, and therefore no collection at all. Only one of my coins has been purchased locally in Australia (out of roughly 200), and even that was in Sydney, which is an 11-hour drive away from me. Instead I can sit at home, bid on coins that might have belonged to a swedish collector, on an american firm's website, and have them sent to my house in australia hassle-free (minus the weeks of waiting on the mail to finally arrive!), while I would have otherwise had no way of even knowing the coin existed, let alone contacting the previous owner to arrange a sale. That's the whole point of the fees, otherwise auction houses would just be charities helping to connect wayward collectors around the world with one another. In summary, buyers fees are definitely annoying, but I'm pretty happy to pay them and feel they serve a very reasonable purpose (unlike theatre booking fees, I'm with you on that one). I just factor them in before bidding and accept them as part of the cost of buying what are, at the end of the day, niche luxury items.

Wonderful thread idea! I've often felt the Argead kings before Alexander, and certainly before Philip II, are quite overlooked, so it's nice to see them getting some love here! Here are my examples, conspiciously missing are Alexander I and Perdikkas II, though one hopes not for long. Not sure if I'll ever get around to the rarer rulers like Aeropos or Perdikkas III though. Archelaos, 413-399 BCE, Aigai, 10.52 g, 22mmObverse: Bust of Apollo facing right, wearing taenia.Reverse: Warhorse standing right with left foreleg raised, wearing bridle with rein trailing behind; surrounded by legend APXEΛAO, "Archelaos". Amyntas III, 393-370 BCE, Aigai, 8.88g, 22mm Obverse: Head of Herakles right, wearing lion skin. Reverse: Horse standing to right, surrounded by legend AMYNTA, "Amyntas". Philip II, 340-334 BCE, Pella, 14.38g, 23mmObverse: Zeus facing right, wearing wreath of oak leaves.Reverse: Nude youth riding warhorse, holding palm frond and wearing laurel crown; kantharos between horses legs; legend above ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥ, "Of Philip". Philip II (Unofficially), 356-345 BCE, Philippi (Formerly Krenides), 1.56 g, 12mmObverse: Youthful bust of Herakles facing right, wearing Nemean lion-pelt.Reverse: Ceremonial tripod, grain kernel in right field. Legend ΦΙΛΙΠΠΩΝ, "Of Philippi".