Curtis JJ

I'm not entirely sure. I wouldn't rule it out but I wouldn't stop looking for alternatives. (Capital letters and "label writing" can be hard, though, as you say.) Dennis Kroh is worth considering. Or Bart Lewis of Olympus (Lincoln, NE) who sold hundreds of the Tetradrachms. That would be really interesting if either of them annotated that volume while preparing their sales of the Col. Curtis Collection. He's not doing coins anymore (as far as I know), though you can still buy his excellent 1993 Ancient Coin Reference Reviews from him on eBay! And you can find his email address on his website for Empire Arms. Some very granular notes on the Curtis Collection sales for anyone who really wants to get into the weeds: Hans Schulman had some early sales that were poorly illustrated & included lots of groups (17 Jun 1958 included 634 lots, mostly groups of Tetradrachms w/ collection numbers -- corresponding to Col. J. Curtis' 1956/7 catalog -- but only 16 illustrated; 20 June 1961 included 60 single lot AE Drachms, none illustrated). I don't know if Kroh's stock from the collection all came from the 1958 Schulman sale, or if Curtis held some back (though I should check). The largest illustrated sale must have been Dennis Kroh's Empire Auction 8 (7 Dec 1987; 549 Alexandrian, almost all illustrated, in a separate section after the Greek & Roman). Possibly also some were included in Auctions 1, 6, and 7. (I'm missing Auction 1, but have 6 - 8; Auction 7 incl. the Gordon J. Dickie Collection of Alexandrian, which included some ex-Curtis.) In the 1990 edition of Curtis' Tetradrachms of Roman Egypt, "Supplement A" is incorrectly labeled as a mid-1980s Empire (Dennis Kroh) Fixed Price List, but according to K. Emmett (and others), it was actually an Olympus FPL (Bart Lewis, Lincoln, NE). I think it was probably Olympus FPL No. 5 (1982/3); per Fitzwilliam Library, it consisted of "Alexandrian, almost all from the H. Schulman sale of 17-VI-1958" . As large buyers from the Schulman sales (I assume), I could see either Bart Lewis (Olympus) or Dennis Kroh (Empire) making these annotations while preparing their own sales. (Which it's fortunate they did, otherwise most of the Curtis Collection would've never been individually photographed/described!)

Love that book! I hope it can confirmed, or at least discovered who the author of the annotations is, if not Curtis. (I just sent you an email about someone who I think is in a position to confirm or deny.) A couple other possibilities occurred to me, both of whom could be consistent with the 1970s-1980s timeframe: Hans Schulman and Dennis Kroh both cataloged large portions of his collection, and must have been in contact with him, so perhaps they could've been sharing books at some point. (I do have hand-writing samples for those two -- but unfortunately only cursive book inscriptions & signatures.)

Oh, that is a great coin in several ways! Not least being a Col. J. Curtis coin from the Emmett Collection (and with the yellow holder)! I keep a bookmark of Zach Beasley's page cataloging the Emmett coins (URL noted at the bottom of Broucheion's description) -- there are about 16 cited as being from both collections, Curtis & Emmett, so I hope to recognize any that pop up for sale having lost that collection history. (I find Alexandrian coins, their collections and literature, especially interesting.) There was a really fantastic Curtis-to-Emmett Elagabalus/Ammon Tetradrachm (great with or without collection history) a couple years ago at CNG that sold cheap, and I still can't get over missing it!

Wow -- very interesting, @DonnaML -- thanks for sharing. Depending on the nature & extent, that could be a rather notable and scandalous bit of commercial numismatic history. Is it commonly known that the Moreira Collection never existed? (Jack Robinson was definitely a real person.) I can think of a few less nefarious explanations, though, and there are a couple things I wonder about before being convinced of that. For the Moreira Sales, all three are titled, "The Moreira Collection Sale and other important properties." So it would be a bit surprising if there were no other consignors at all. A lot of the provenance notes for Moreira III (esp. for Half Cents, what Edison consigned) mention recent sales and sound a bit like the "other properties" ("Obtained by the consignor at..." or "Formerly lot 1708 in our August 1983 sale" and so on). EDIT: Oh good, specific lots numbers listed in correspondence, that will help figure out what's going on. E2: All the half-cents. Jack H. Robinson was a well-known dealer/collector of the kind of coins in sale. Beyond the bio entry at the start of that catalog, he has an entry in Pete Smith's American Numismatic Biographies (p. 137 of my edition, "Robinson, Jack H. Collector, Dealer (b.12/11/1941 d.2/18/2021)"). Here's a bio from Numismatic Bibliomania Society after his death: https://www.coinbooks.org/v25/esylum_v25n27a16.html Bernard Edison is mentioned in at least one of the coins' provenances for that sale (hammered as $11,550 = ~2/3 of his payment), though I'm not sure if that means he was current owner. (As "R. Tettenhorst," which according to his Smith-ANB entry was a name he did business as.) Looks like the sales grossed in the $1-2-Million range, so Edison's payment was about 3% (Moreira III) and 1% (Robinson) of the totals. For Moreira I would interpret that as being the "other properties," but I don't see any such note on Robinson (not that I've really looked in detail), so it's odd that they would sprinkle other collectors'/dealers' coins in there. I'm curious how many other consignors there were paid from those sales and whether the correspondence indicates their types of coins.

I'm going to send you an email about this. I don't have a Col. J. Curtis writing sample but I know who does. SITNAM: https://numismatics.org/sitnam/ Search: https://numismatics.org/sitnam/search/ There are probably researchers who have other ways to use it (and could explain it better!). I think the search/browse options may still be evolving (and more data is added periodically), but I usually search by type (Crawford #). (For provenance, I usually start with the Raw and Processed Binders linked on the ANS-Authorities page, since not everything is on SITNAM yet.) An important part of SITNAM is that it sorts by control symbol (and die). So, if you find your coin, or a similar one, you can then find others with the same control symbol (and/or dies). Alice Sharpless had an ANS “Pocket Change” blog about SITNAM & Schaefer’s classification. Especially re: the “ODEC (One Die for Every Control-mark)” types: “…an especially important subset of issues because many actually have sequential numerical control marks, which allow us to test methods of die quantification, as has been discussed in previous blog posts. Not all issues use numerical control marks, but these issues can, nevertheless, still offer hints to die quantification and offer insight into the organization of the mint by showing the various control marks systems that were utilized.” For some coins (eventually I think it will be all) you can search by dies and control symbols. For the rest, the search results are just ordered by matching symbols. Here's an example of one you can search by obv. die (linked in the Sharpless blog above with other exs.): Or this obverse die for which all 3 known specimens seem to be plated (“fourrées”): Here’s an example of searching for one of my coin types (and finding the coin in SITNAM): CENSORI Denarius (88 BCE) with galloping horse and an interesting “serpent-entwined rod” control symbol in exergue, “CX” above horse. (C. Marcius Censorinus was one of the last men standing in Sulla’s Civil War. Until Sulla cut his head off and sent it back to Marius the Younger, who committed suicide shortly.) I start on the search page & choose “Crawford 346/2b” from the “Coin Type” dropdown menu (“Select option from list…”): https://numismatics.org/sitnam/search There are 359 results on 18 pages! Examples of my control symbol are on Page 13 (coincidentally, 13 exs.): https://numismatics.org/sitnam/results?q=coinType_facet%3A%22RRC%20346%2F2b%22&start=240 I click on mine, “LONG ISLAND NOV 10.” Unfortunately, it’s one of the ones for which they don’t know/remember exactly what the source was (“Private or internet sale?”), though I have some theories. These coins also appear on the ANS’ site, “Coinage of the Roman Republic Online,” a general Republican coinage reference organized by Crawford Nos.: https://crro.numismatics.org/ So, this coin is on CRRO's 6th p. of 346/2b examples: https://numismatics.org/crro/id/rrc-346.2b?page=6#examples. (The SITNAM site only includes the Schaefer examples, which are being analyzed by die, whereas CRRO includes mostly museum specimens. The CRRO results are organized by type & collection; they're NOT sorted by control symbol or dies, the way SITNAM & Schaefer's “Processed Binders” are, but may have links to others of the same dies on occasion.) From the CRRO results, the link (“Long Island Nov 10”) leads back to the coin’s SITNAM entry, above (just like the museum specimens lead back to each museum's website).

Oh, too bad -- that's one of my gaps among the later lists. I have ...353–374 AND 385–387... but I'm missing 375-384. Hopefully someone else will notice and be able to share. I know which coin you mean, though, from its recent sale. Great portrait of Nero and Colossus! I'm interested in these types -- seems like they would confirm that Nero's Colossus had the radiate crown during his lifetime (refuting the idea that it was only added later in the Flavian era)? Also, I wonder if it would be in Banti & Simonetti's Corpus Nummorum Romanorum? It would be one of the last volumes (not sure which), published c. 1978 or 1979, so there would be time for them to have included the 1976 M&M sale. (I don't have the CNR volumes, but they're meant to be pretty comprehensive of known specimens. I just found my new Nero/Agrippina Drachm from Caesarea in their vol XVI, no 73.)

All right, good news Donna! Not only is that is the correct coin (photo matches your sale listing), but you get further provenance to another notable sale, The Moreira Collection Sale, Part I, Superior Galleries (Beverly Hills, 31 May - 1 Jun 1988), Lot 1684 (p. 141): I love when that happens! I don't know anything much about Moreira except that it's a big and well-known collection sale. Not sure if it's a collector's last name or a pseudonym. No intro essay or anything in the catalog & I've never noticed a first name given. It also contained many modern coins and was sold over at least three sales at Superior c. 1988-9 or so. From my notes, it contained (in part II), Naxos Tetradrachm (old style), 4X Dekadrachms by Euainetos [3X] & Kimon [1] & Nero Port of Ostia Sestertius. I always like to know my coins formerly shared collection quarters with the great masterpieces! On to Kricheldorf... The Krich. 46 catalog did not name a consignor for this portion of the sale. (It had a collection of German coins or something later, but not for the ancient.) From Kricheldorf Auktion 46 (Stuttgart, 17 Jul 1998) Lot 187: Great coin -- Now to figure out where Collector Moreira got it from! Your coin is also illustrated (from the Kricheldorf photo) on p. 150 of Richard Schaefer "Processed" Binder 19 (321_02_od) (The hyperlinked index below doesn't give pages for Crawford 321/1 but they're up there in the right order, sorted by control symbol -- a bunch of them!) I was hoping I might see something before 1988, but no luck (unless it's in the wrong place or I overlooked it): (Here are some other Kricheldorf 46 Denarii on ANS's SITNAM. Yours isn't up yet, but it may be in the future once they're processed more of Schaefer's data: https://numismatics.org/sitnam/results?q=kricheldorf+46)

Hi Donna -- I just looked and found the email, sorry to have missed it! But I am glad you wrote and that now I've figured that out. I see @Curtisimo fortunately also has the M&M FPL 510 to check in my absence -- I'll look over everything and follow up in the morning. (Always nice to be able to put the catalogs to work: some of them don't get much use after my first look-through and annotations -- spend lonely months and years on the shelf before they get a chance to come down and shine!)

That's a bummer. Thanks for pointing it out. Luckily it appears accessible on the internet archive "wayback machine": https://web.archive.org/web/20210611223829/https://www.tesorillo.com/aes/ That's occasionally happened with other important sites, including Cathy Lorber's online catalog of the coins of Larissa, which had become a standard reference but disappeared. It was partially archived, but not completely. Similar with AsiaMinorCoins. But that has now returned. The ones with a smaller number of static pages are more likely to survive in the web archive. (I haven't tried WildWinds, but hope it'd survive if something happened.) The ones that have real trouble are the databases that run searches on scripts like Isegrim (but that's back up running text searches, happily).

Trajan's monumental and architectural coins are some of my favorites among Roman Imperials. The "Columna Traiani" also fits into my "Barbarians, Captives, and Enemies" Collection because the sculptural frieze scrolling all the way up details the Dacian conquest. The amazing thing is that you can still see the column standing in Trajan's Forum in Rome today. Another monument depicted on coins once also stood in the Forum (now lost): The "Equus Traiani," or Equestrian Statue of Trajan. And one of the Dacian captives depicted on the column itself:

I understand that reaction entirely, and many do feel similarly. I have no disagreement with any of it. But I always think about it from the perspective of the ANS's "institutional ecology": Where do they have to live? ANS is primarily a scholarly organization, so their survival depends on existing in the university, academic association, and museum ecosystem, as well as securing the cooperation of antiquities authorities in "source countries," some with highly nationalist policies. (Probably much more consequential for their future than most private collectors are, though I haven't checked what they say about funding sources in their annual reports.) Having read the literatures Elkins summarized, and the related association and government policies, I think the ANS positions are actually pretty moderate compared to their peer institutions in the archaeological world. (In some corners collectors are truly despised.) Comparing the ANS journal publication guidelines, for instance, to those of the AIA / Archaeological Institute of America's (Elkins gives good overviews of both), the ANS guidelines are vastly more permissive. (They do give preference to provenanced materials, museum collections, and controlled excavations, but allow publication of items that have been published in auction catalogs and from private collections that aren't anonymous. That's borderline heretical to the AIA.) Of course, not all or even most individuals in academic organizations are hostile to collecting, and many scholars are collectors themselves. (In my "provenance glossary" of maybe a couple hundred collectors, professors are among the most frequent professions, including many from Classics, archaeology, and related disciplines. If you ever wondered why some people might want their collection to be anonymous when sold, this is one more reason.) But the official stances of archaeological organizations -- and especially national antiquities authorities -- are almost always openly hostile to collecting, with grudging toleration if it's completely and demonstrably (i.e., with documents) consistent with the 1970 UNESCO conference on cultural heritage. Some in that world actually seem to consider ANS the enemy -- or at least sympathetic to the enemy -- for its ties to collectors, just as most other museums have been at risk in recent decades. Even if they wished to, I suspect ANS would have difficulty surviving if they moved much further from the stricter positions of the antiquities authorities and archaeology associations.

Of course, Syracuse was also responsible for a fascinating array of bronze coinage (as was the rest of Sicily). Mine are mostly in average circulated condition, but here are three of the more presentable ones: The first is from the period under Pyrrhos, who was invited to Sicily to drive out the Carthaginians but overstayed his welcome. He was soon ejected and moved on to new wars. A relative of Alexander "The Great" of Macedon, he lived in his shadow (as did his father's cousin, Alexander I "The Mollosian," King of Epirus, who was uncle AND brother-in-law of Alex III). In my opinion, Pyrrhos' coinage reflected his self-consciousness about Alexander III's comparative fame. Below, the obverse is reminiscent of the famous Tetradrachm's Herakles head (but facing Westward rather than Eastward as Alexander had done); the reverse Athena Promachos is also found on various coins of Alexander's successors. (Other similarities are apparent on Pyrrhos' Epirote coinage.) AE Litra (23mm, 11.8g), temp. Pyrrhos, c. 278-276 BCE. Herakles / Athena. Calciati CNS 177; HGC 2, 1450. Ex El Medina Collection; CNG XXXI (Boston, 9 Sep 1994), Lot 90; Superior Galleries August Rare Coin Sale (8 August 1983), Lot 26. These two below are from the Clain-Stefanelli Collection (Elvira & Vladimir, the famous numismatists & Smithsonian curators). Pyrrhos' successor in Syracuse was his former general, Hieron II, who was tyrant for an astonishing 60 years! During the First Punic War he sided with Carthage, but later acceded to Rome, to which Syracuse remained an ally throughout his reign. This period was an apogee in Syracusan history. AE Hemilitron? (17mm, 3.98 g, 8h), temp. Hieron II, c. 275-215 BCE. Kore / Bull butting. Calciati CNS 199; HGC 2, 1497 Unfortunately for the fate of Syracuse, the peace with Rome did not survive Hieron's successor, Hieronymous (no coins to show at the moment, but maybe I'll take one and edit it in). If I understand correctly, the new 15-year-old Tyrant chose to side with Carthage in the Second Punic War. That turned out to be a poor decision. Apparently most of the following period was spent under the Roman Siege of Syracuse. (Spoiler: Rome won.) The last independent Syracusan coins would've been struck c. 212 BCE: Fifth Democracy, AE Tetras? (22mm., 9.32g), c. 214-212 BCE. Laureate head of Apollo l. / Dioscuri on horseback. Calciati CNS 205; SNG Cop 889. AND... Since Gelon has come up, I'll add mine to the mix... Time of Gelon (485-479 BC). 16.43g, 23mm, Boehringer 88:

That type doesn't appear to be in Lindgren I (including the Addenda section to Lindgren I). Syedra is short (1606-1612, plus addenda: A1608B, A1609A), so I photographed it all (including at least one other Faustina II [1608A] in case it was misidentified). Lindgren may not have had one, since it wasn't a totally comprehensive collection. If you do think he had one, maybe it was in Lindgren III? Or possibly IDed to a different city? (He had many corrections, which are indicated in the errata published in each volume; nothing relevant I can see vol. I errata.) (Note: I didn’t try to size the two photos from the Addenda to the same scale as the main plate.)

Another similar case from 2005 was an EID MAR denarius that Eric McFadden & CNG had to turn over to the Greek consulate after buying it IN CASH with no research (despite what sounded like an absurdly suspicious situation) and then discovering Interpol had an open investigation! (Story in 2006 from COINage magazine, “Ancient Coin Buyers, Beware.”) At least that was only an EID MAR denarius, not one of only a couple existing 1/4 Shekels from Year Four (69 CE) of the Jewish Rebellion.

The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs posted a press release that included some information not in the New York Times article: https://www.gov.il/en/departments/news/extremely-rare-coin-presented-to-the-state-of-israel-13-sep-2022 I don’t mean to get into the regional political conflict, but what made me a bit uncomfortable was treating the coins as if they had a side in our 20th-21st current conflicts, or support nationalism today: "As Israel's Ambassador to the UN, this event is especially important to me because the Palestinians are working at the UN to hide the history of our people and erase our connection to the Land of Israel. […] This coin is evidence of the eternal bond between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel, and as Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations, I can also utilize it in my mission to fight the lies of our enemies.” The press release also made sure to identify “Palestinian antiquities looters” as responsible for unearthing the coin. As in any area, ancient coin policy is complex & challenging, but with ultra-rarities important to the history of a place and its peoples, I accept that nation-states may have an interest in acquiring them that outweighs interest in collecting. I just prefer to see them recognized as part of the larger, collective cultural history. I.e., “Internationalist,” not “nationalist,” in the terminology of cultural heritage policy debate: Merryman, John Henry. 1986. “Two Ways of Thinking about Cultural Property,” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 80, No. 4. (Oct., 1986), pp. 831-853. Available online [JSTOR].

As I learned just about an hour ago from @Nick's Tweet, the new INC 2022 Survey of Numismatic Research 2014-2020 (Vol I & II) is now available online. This link goes directly to the PDF file (13.7MB, 1,242 pages, the first Volume, 553 pages, is particularly relevant to ancient coins). I'll mention just one article -- the first one I read. For the first time, the INC's Survey included a section on "Provenance and Legal Issues," which, of course, affects all collectors, and happens to be one of my main interests. I've attached the excerpt of just this chapter (10 pages including references) for anyone who doesn't want to download all 1,242! (Hopefully it works, I haven't tried attaching PDFs before.) If you've never looked at an INC Survey of Numismatic Research, you should do so -- the old ones too (note that the INC Surveys of Numismatic Research are not the same as the INC conference proceedings, separate documents). The numerous chapters are brief reviews, and can be of variable quality (and languages) depending who writes them, but are a great way to get a quick grip on important trends in research and the discipline. What do you think? If you read Elkins differently, let me know! Nathan T. Elkins. 2022. “Provenance and Legal Issues,” pp.55-64 in Alram et al. (eds.), Survey of Numismatic Research, 2014-2020. Winterthur: International Numismatic Council. Elkins is the newly appointed Deputy Director of the ANS. When announced, some collectors were concerned, as he'd done some anti-collecting blogging when he was (as I saw it) a junior academic. Personally, looking at his public activities, I wasn't too concerned about him being anti-collecting, especially given ANS' many long-term ties to private collectors and firms. His language in this essay sometimes equates metal detecting with looting and collecting/selling with trafficking; no one who reads this academic literature will be surprised, though for collectors the tone can feel unpleasant. I didn't find anything in his literature review that I wasn't already familiar with, but that's important to know too. I did think there were some obvious topics he overlooked. (I save those for the end.) A few summary comments. His overview of US import restrictions is useful and parsimonious. An excerpt: Page 57: “A list of active import restrictions, with links to the designated lists of each country can be found on the website of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee of the U.S. Department of State: https://eca.state.gov/cultural-heritage-center/cultural-property-advisory-committee/current-import-restrictions. The United States currently limits the importation of ancient coins from Algeria (implemented 2019), Bulgaria (implemented 2014, renewed 2019), China (implemented 2009, renewed 2014 and 2019), Cyprus (implemented 2002, coins first protected in 2006, renewed in 2012 and 2017), Egypt (implemented 2016), Greece (implemented 2011, renewed 2016), Jordan (implemented 2020), Libya (implemented 2018), Morocco (implemented 2021), and Turkey (implemented 2021). Ancient coins from Iraq are subject to import restrictions via the Emergency Protection for Iraqi Cultural Antiquities Act (2004), as are coins from Syria through the Protect and Preserve International Cultural Property Act (2016), and emergency import restrictions were imposed in 2020 on coins and antiquities originating from Yemen.” He also discusses terrorism and conflict zones, and includes various empirical contributions. It's rare for anyone on collecting forums to entertain the likelihood or accept evidence that such groups exploit coins/antiquities for revenue. Personally, I think it's implausible that ancient coins/antiquities from conflict zones aren't funding the criminal or terrorist actors there, just as any other area of commerce does. (Ancient coins are treated almost like any other buried resource -- such as oil -- and often mined and sold by whoever is on the land.) In Syria and Iraq, I think the evidence was overwhelming (and comes in numerous forms, from satellite photos to interviews with locals to analyses of objects on the market, and others). But I understand that my interpretation may be in the minority. Lacking... One area I felt was lacking was published research on provenance in the private market and museum collections. The timeframe was narrow, so some references like John Spring's (2009) bibliography of Ancient Coin Auction Catalogs, 1880-1980 was out of range. But David Fanning's (2020) Ancient Coins in Early American Auctions, 1869-1939 was not. Those familiar with the journal KOINON will be aware of articles on ancient coin provenances in several of the issues (KOINON I & II were within the timeframe and included valuable articles on provenance research by John Voukelatos). Hadrian Rambach has written a number of valuable essays on coin collectors, dealers, and provenances in the 19th and 20th centuries, some within the period of the review, but none mentioned [https://independent.academia.edu/HadrienRambach]. There are others. Though he mentioned the Ex-Numis website, he did not mention the massive digitization of catalogs for provenance (and other) research by University of Heidelberg, the ANS (at Archive), and Washington University's Newman Numismatic Portal. Finally, although the criminological literature is mentioned, as are the American MOU and British PAS / Treasure Act systems, I don't think he gave enough attention to academic scholarship on policy alternatives, enforcement strategies, and civil and criminal approaches (nor public attitudes or implementation/effectiveness of existing policies). Oftentimes these aren't exactly empirical research, but essays in law reviews, making suggestions about policy improvements and novel legal theories, so I can understand why he wouldn't spend much time on them. But I felt the absence was notable: What do the policy and legal experts say the various alternatives are and what their likely consequences might be? Elkins (2022) Provenance and Legal Issues, INC 2022, Survey.pdf

Beautiful! Here's a favorite of mine. It's in the early-ish transitional period between "stern style" and later classical Arethusas. I like both of these dies, but the reverse (Arethusa) die especially. This pair (V274/R378) is not in Boehringer and I've never found another example. (Nor any provenance for this one prior to its Goldberg 2015 appearance, though the very dark toning suggests it's been above ground for at least a century or two.) It's one of the only coins I've left it in a slab (for a few reasons), but I don't really mind it. I'm sure I'd love to hold it in hand though, especially given the broad flan. NGC described it as "edge altered"; I'm guessing because it was shaved down to fit a bezel maybe in the 19th or early 20th century, resulting in a bit of low weight (16.19g, though I'd really like to double-check it). Greek (Classical). Sicily, Syracuse, AR Tetradrachm (16.19g, 28mm, 12h), Second Democracy (466-405 BCE), struck 450 – 440.Obverse: Charioteer, wearing long chiton, holding kentron and reins, driving slow quadriga right; above, Nike flying right, crowning with wreath a horse to outside left, rearing up to receive it; in exergue, Pistrix (Sea serpent or ketos) right; all within pearl border, except the charioteer, whose head breaks the dotted circle.Reverse: ΣVRAKOΣ-IO-N. Head of Arethusa facing right, wavy hair rolled up in back under a thin band (or diadem), wearing beaded necklace with a jewel, and loop-and-pendant earrings; four dolphins around, facing clockwise.References/Notes: Boehringer series XV, unlisted die pair (V274/R378); cf. SNG ANS 177; du Chastel 28-29 type. (Böhringer types 535-544, 546 share one die with this example, but the combination is otherwise unknown; V274 had been in long service by this time, an example known as early as R367 [CNR XXII 1, 1997, 19 & Triton XIII (14 Jan 2020), 120]). Further ref (quoting CNG 112, 89) for comparanda: HGC 2, 1311; BMC 85; SNG München 1018-9; McClean 2663 (all from the same dies).Provenance: Ex-Ira & Larry Goldberg Coins & Collectibles, Inc. Auction #84, lot 3010 (27 January 2015) Unsold; eBay purchase after the auction. NGC #3763070-001 (XF; Strike: 4/5, Surface: 2/5, Edge altered).http://images.goldbergauctions.com/php/lot_auc.php?site=1&sale=84&lot=3010;https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=2333607;Gallery of my photos: https://imgur.com/a/Jpur0EM

In that case I better post my Istros Drachm Triptychs again! (Also, since it's about TWO Supernovae, I do think it's kinda fitting that we would discuss it twice!) QUOTING MYSELF: .... this reminds me of the 2005 article in the Journal for the History of Astronomy about the Istros inverted heads representing a solar eclipse! (Who even knew that such a journal existed -- much less that it would've made it to volume 36 and beyond!!!) [Saslow, W. & P. Murdin, “The double heads of Istrus: the oldest eclipse on a coin?” JHA 36, Part 1, No. 122, pp. 21 - 27]

I've always felt Probus has some of the most visually interesting Roman Imperial Coins. Also among the most varied (if not the most varied): ERIC II (R. Suarez, 2010) lists 2,400 types of Antoninianus for Probus; the 19th cent. Austrian collector Alexander Missong reportedly had 10,000-11,000 different types of Probus coins. (Now at the Kunsthistorishes Museum, it's probably the largest Probus Collection ever.) None of these are terribly special, but here are my 10 best (I have lots of lower grade ones from big group lots, most of which I haven't fully cataloged, or photographed): Unfortunately I don't have many of the really cool, dramatic obverses, but a couple interesting types: Serdica (RIC 911); Double-struck, possibly Serdica (RIC 878). And, of course, some of Probus' many captives & enemies types (which were, appropriately for him, often equestrian in nature), including his ADVENTVS type: Siscia (RIC 632); * The right coin above is also part of AEQVITI series, Rome (RIC 223). Some that are a bit on the boring side (at least as far as Probus goes) but in attractive condition with nice silvering/surfaces (but the left one below does have a pretty cool bust): Serdica (RIC 838); Siscia (RIC 733). Below is one from Lugdunum with Abundantia. I wanted this particular one because it was from the famous Probus collection of Philippe Gysen (1950-2019), #5 in his inventory, so one of his first, and also a plate coin in Hiland & Oliva (2013), Le Règne de l'Empereur Probus, Histoire et Numismatique (276-282 apr. J.-C.) (Page 79, No. 9) and cited in Bastien (2003) Le Monnayage de l'Atelier de Lyon - Supplément II (196e) -- Lugdunum (RIC 17). A couple from the Rev. Richard J. Plant (1928-2020) Collection (author of Arabic Coins & How to Read Them, Greek Coin Types..., and other books) Siscia (RIC 651); Rome (RIC 173). And here's one more that I particularly like: Rome (RIC 200), ex Kricheldorf 1989 (?), possibly 1988, XLI?

Sometimes I've found having "duplicates" to be truly wonderful. My Phalanna and Thessaly AE sub-collections began with a group lot of Phalanna bronzes of the same type. During the first few weeks I developed buyer's remorse, thinking, "Oh no, why did I buy so many duplicates of one or two types!" I got over it: At last count I had 40-50 Phalanna, mostly of the general type below. I began looking closer, trying to catalog them by die-matches and to understand why the previous collector had literally several thousand coins of this type. In the process, I've really gained a much greater appreciation for their internal variety, and found topics to research in greater depth. I've even been inspired to draft an (as-yet unpublished) "research note" and bibliography on the history of the type's identification, especially the obverse, which is very inadequately described in the literature. This is ~25-30% of the group: There are lots of other types for which I'm happy to have duplicates, especially in my "barbarians, captives, and enemies" collection. Here are four Caracallas of almost the same type (top left has a V COS where the others have a IIII) ... There are many other examples, especially with the fourth-century bronzes. Each specimen or die may show slightly different details of the trophy or captives/barbarians/fallen horseman, and I get no end of fascination "flyspecking" them: For my Owl Tetradrachms, they have different flaws and assets. All three add up to about one good specimen! (Not quite -- I still need a crest above the helmet and more corners on the incuse square -- hopefully I can cover all that in the next one example and won't need 2 or 3 more!) If I ever found one perfect example, I might sell off the rest as duplicates (except the first, which has sentimental value), but for now I "need" them all!

Incidentally, what happened to all those 1,000s-of-1,000s of casts for European catalogs? And projector slides, 3-D acrylic impressions, foil impressions, and so on – all that “Paper, Plaster, Sulfur, Foil...“ as Oliver Hoover (2012) put it. (For those who have the hard copy of ANS Magazine [F21, # 3], another good article is Jesse Kraft’s "The Acrylic Slides of William Guild”; unlike Hoover, not online yet, though you can see an examples in the ANS 2021 Annual Report [to PDF].) I’m as fascinated by the history of imaging coins as with the genre of small-booklet FPL/auction catalogs by mail – I hope enough of these will be saved in the next couple decades. Predicting technology or collecting trends may be risky, but I think one near future of imaging will be “big data” & “data mining” – the ability to instantly match dies and identify coins from photos, or send an algorithm to complete a die-study in seconds, to catch known fakes, recognize lost provenances… All those exist already but are unreliable, clunky. They’ll get more efficient & comprehensive. The questions I have: whether they’ll be more accessible, or more stratified in who can afford to use them; and whether new collectors (or even scholars) will learn to ID coins, match dies, or recognize fakes once the computers can do it for them. As far as collecting, I’m optimistic that even if new generations stop using physical coins (I doubt they will completely), it won't stop collecting. I think there’s something inherently, corporeally rewarding about them (hence their success), and new generations will recognize and want to be in touch with it. I think that as daily activities generally become less tactile and physical, and more rapidly-changing, people might even develop greater interest in the obsolete physicality of the 2nd millennium and before. Same with books: There are very high quality digital 19th-20th cent. auction catalogs online now, but it doesn't seem to dampen the prices of physical copies at auction. Many people still want the “real” thing. (Even if only for prestige, since it's hard to show off your digital library and JSTOR account!) Personally, I love having both, being able to experience a physical copy just as people did when it was produced 25 or 125 years ago, and a digital copy for daily reading/research.

Phew, the plates of BMC Corinth are just... beautiful. Nothing else is quite like seeing the world's greatest collection of Greek coins on their original plates, produced to the most exacting standards, and the 20th century world's highest quality reference.... I get choked up seeing them -- it gets me every time 🥲

I believe some Alexandrian tetradrachms do have "surface enrichment" of some kind. Not sure how it was achieved, if it was a layer of silver added or if they leeched out surface copper before striking or something else. Here's a Gordian III of mine with silvery surfaces: It's easier to see in video, especially when tilted against the lighting:

Thanks much! I'll confess that, with examples like that, I often wonder whether they've been artificially re-silvered in modern times. (Or some other white metal besides silver.) That one is even brighter in hand (what looks like toning is just shadows/ lighting). I've never figured out how to tell the difference except on the obvious ones. I love your captives example at the top -- on the right captive you can see two diagonal lines down/ across the back. I'm not certain, but I think those may represent some of the cordage with which the captives are bound. On your fourth coin, who is the little figure in the middle? Is that a captive, a royal child,or a cupid or something?

Thanks much for the update, Klaus! I've also found Curtisimo's CT Thread (a different Curtis, one of at least 3 here, no relation!) with his summary of Nolle's & Wenninger's argument. Recognizing that I'm in a distinct minority (but not alone), and that general opinion seems to have sided with Nollé & Wenninger (1998) over H. Cahn & Gerrin (1988), I'm still "strongly agnostic" (at least for now): I consider Cahn's hypothesis highly plausible (that it is a portrait of Themistocles). I also think Nollé's is plausible (that it is Hephaestus). Of course, I can't make a truly fair evaluation of (much less counter argument to) Nollé before I've finished the original, but I think I understand the main argument for why it is Hephaestus instead. It all hinges on the interpretation the "Θ - Ε" on the obverse -- whether it's nominative or genitive -- which we can't tell from an abbreviation. Based on context, I am quite sure the "Θ - Ε" on the reverse is genitive, of course, identifying this coin as "From Themistokles." But... The main issue(s) as I see it: Why would he also put his name on the obverse in addition to the reverse (using the same characters), unless it served another function? And why did he do it only on this one type, and not on the other types with Themistocles's monogram on the reverse, such as the owl (which would've entirely resolved the debate)? There may be other explanations (perhaps Nollé had some), but to me, that shows clear intent to highlight something different about this one obverse type, and that the difference required the application of Themistocles' name (whether nominative or genitive). It's hard not to consider that it might be what it seems... naming the image. And the old middle-ground hypothesis: Themistocles-as-Hephaestus. Ambiguity and alternative interpretations were some of the most powerful tools in coinage (e.g., Rowan, 2016, "Ambiguity, Iconology and Entangled Objects..."). But they can also be interpretive obstacles for us now (including by making us look for them in places they don't exist -- a possibility I acknowledge). * Incidentally, here is a much clearer example of a larger denomination from Roma in 2018. I'm not sure it contributes, unless it helps to further identify the imagery as Hephaestus (or if the facial features matched a known sculptural bust of Themistocles) (NOT my coin!) Roma EA 16 (26 Sep 2018), 258 Ionia, Magnesia AR Trihemiobol. Themistokles, as governor of Magnesia, circa 465/4-460/59 BC. Bearded male head right wearing cap or helmet ornamented with four laurel leaves and spiral decoration; Θ-E flanking / ΘΕ monogram within dotted border inside incuse square. Cahn & Gerin, NC 1988, p. 15, 8, pl. 2, 8; J. Nollé - A. Wenninger, JNG XLVIII/XLIX (1998/99), Th.3c. 1.17g, 10mm, 1h. Interestingly, Roma calls it a "male head" and doesn't side with Hephaestus or Themistocles, and cites the two major articles on both sides of that debate.