Kaleun96

On 7/24/2023 at 4:30 PM, Al Kowsky said:

Much has been said about provenance & rarity on this thread, however, those two factors have nothing to with value, strange as that may seem 🤔. The deciding factors that determine value are supply & demand. 

Provenance and rarity can have *something* to do with value, they just aren't the only things that influence value. They may not always have the same effect on value either, as is evident by coins coming from important collections vs those coming from a random collector. Both rarity and provenance affect the supply side of the equation too. You can have low supply and low demand (as you demonstrate in your examples), low supply and high demand (Eid Mar), high supply and low demand, and high supply and high demand (Caesar elephant denarii, Athenian tetradrachms etc).

If provenance had nothing to do with demand (and supply), then we wouldn't see crazy prices for coins with very old or very interesting provenances. The important bit to remember is that not all provenances are equal.

5 hours ago, NewStyleKing said:

I have noticed that quite incredibly , my post "Provenance for me is nothing of true value" has racked up 2.6K views whilst having only 80 replies, probably mainly me!

I wonder what  it was  that attracted  them  and that the vast, vast majority  had  nothing to say?

Even my Roma XXVlll got  1K, 27 replies !  now  looking around, these  are  huge figures.

The replies minus mine, are often the same ol' crowd.

I long suspected that coin people  are a funny lot..secretive, insular, peculiar odd etc 

I mean I am amazed  that people obsess  over " CUDS"! A slight malfunction of the modern mass minting process, or a bit of grease got in the way....I mean, how banal! And the associated coins  are the "Beanie Baby" pointlessness of modern coins.

At least my coin failures  can be ascribed  to working under pressure  in ghastly conditions and  under  the lash!

 

 

As pointed out by John, the 2.6k views are not a reflection of unique individuals who have viewed the thread, but the total number of visits. For example, the "Posit it and pick it" thread has 4.4k replies and 131k views and of course nearly all of those views are coming from the same dozen or so people returning to post in that thread. So it's not possible, based on the replies/views numbers alone to say that "the vast, vast majority had nothing to say" in your thread.

1 hour ago, CPK said:

Thanks! I'm using a zoom lens, 18-140mm at the 140mm distance...should I be doing something different?

That adapter looks interesting, not something I'd seen before.

I think what I'm going to do next is try to construct some sort of solid, integrated photography setup. Right now I'm using a cheap tripod to hold the camera, with the coin balanced between a couple bright work lamps clamped on various furniture items for support. Needless to say it's a bit haphazard. I'd like to have a setup where everything is held securely in place, is more easily customized, and an accidental bump doesn't send the whole thing into chaos.

Yeah from memory extension tubes work best at focal lengths around 75mm or less, while close-up lenses like the one I suggested are better for longer focal lengths. By "work best" I just mean you get more magnification for a given tube length. The trade-off is likely that as you increase the tube length for longer focal lengths, you increase the effective aperture and not only lose light but risk going into diffraction territory (degraded optical performance). The downside of the shorter focal lengths is the decreased working distance, so it's a bit of a balancing act to get everything just right!

Just to add about the close-up adapter I linked, the Raynox DCR-250, they are very highly regarded in the macro community (I have two myself) so they're a great piece of kit to have on hand. But if the extension tubes are working for you, there's no need to rush into buying one or anything. Sometimes they pop up for half price or so on eBay but maybe if you wanted to give it a go first you could buy it on Amazon and always return it if you decided it's superfluous.

1 hour ago, CPK said:

So far most of my coin photos have been taken with my old Samsung S6, and I can't complain; it's worked reasonably well. I do have a DSLR but no lens that allows really close-up shots. Well a couple days ago I ordered a lens extension and last night I was experimenting with it. So far I'm liking the results. I'm sure it doesn't hold a candle to a real macro lens as far as image quality, but then it only cost about $70 instead of $500.

Not having used my DSLR (Nikon D3200) extensively for coin photography, there is a learning curve which I'm still navigating. But I think with some coins it will be a marked improvement, not just in quality but also in better picturing the coin as it appears in real life. For example, here is a before-and-after photo of a Crispus AE - the first picture with the S6 and the second with the DSLR. What do you all think? Has anyone else played around with extension tubes?

 

Looking great! I've used extension tubes here and there, mostly for higher magnifications (3x and above). They're a very cheap and effective tool but as you say you lose some depth of field and you also lose a bit of light as your effective aperture increases. I think the hardest thing with extension tubes is changing the magnification, unless you use them on a zoom lens but then usually the useful range of focal lengths for extension tubes is fairly limited anyway (20-60mm or so). If you have a zoom lens with a longer focal length, you might find a close-up adapter like this is more effective than extension tubes.

Extension tubes are a great way of seeing whether it's worth investing in a macro lens or not too, whether for the added convenience or optical quality, or both.

I'd recommend Ostia and Hadrian's Villa as well. Both need to be done on separate days, don't think you could do both on the same day. And if you do them, you should aim to tick off some of your other visits in the evening after you're back and have had a rest. Ostia is massive so does take awhile to get around. Hadrian's Villa felt a bit smaller but takes longer to get there and a bit more hassle IIRC. Though once you throw in the Roman Forum as well, you really don't have much time for anything else big like a Vatican tour.

Last time I was in Rome I did a speed run of the Forum as I didn't have much time and it was way too hot to hang around for long. I think I knocked it off in about 90 minutes but it doesn't give you much time to enjoy it. I had seen in previously so didn't mind scooting around quickly that time. But that at least freed up the afternoon so I could see some other sights.

4 minutes ago, DonnaML said:

What does AML KYC stand for?

Anti-Money Laundering and Know Your Customer. Any payment processing company or similar basically has to follow a lot of regulations related to these to demonstrate they're not supporting money launderers, scams, or illicit trade etc.

I've gone through this photo validation thing with Wise a couple of times over the past 3 or 4 years. Every now and then they need you to jump through a hoop to show you're not money laundering or some such. Thankfully it's fairly infrequent, you shouldn't be asked to do this every time you send money (at least AFAIK).

6 minutes ago, Fortuna Redux said:

@Kaleun96 Love the Aspendos stater, I’ve never seen such a beautiful slinger 🤩

Yeah it's a beauty! I don't think I have one with such nice detail in the face of the slinger, it's often worn or struck flat. This one will be my 12th, my other ones can be found here if you're curious: https://artemis-collection.com/data-statistics/sibyl/?mint=Aspendos&denomination=Stater&sort_key=id&sort_order=desc&obverse=wrestler

Had a relatively successful Leu, won most of the targets I thought would stay at reasonable prices. I managed to win two of them at below what they had previously hammered for and one for just a bit more (was a pre-Covid auction though).

1 hour ago, Rand said:

@Kaleun96

On reflection, I retract my 'I suspect most coins people try to smuggle from Turkey and Greece are incidental finds, often on their own land.'.

There was a clear spike in coin finds since metal detecting became widespread in the UK and elsewhere, and finds by metal detecting are deliberate rather than incidental. Even if metal detecting is less common (or prohibited) in Greece and Turkey, illegal searchers use it.

Still, if Google's translation from Greek is any good, the linked articles are not convincing that large-scale looting is a major problem in Greece. One article repeats the known Eid Mar aureus story; the other refers to a trial that has yet to be completed (if understood correctly).

The trial case refers to 2,024 coins confiscated by authorities and 600 coins repatriated from Munich during the investigation started in 2015. It would be interesting to know how many coins reached the Archeological Museum in Athens over the same period for comparison.

Just want to add that I didn't link the article to prove that large-scale looting is a major problem in Greece, rather it was just an example of such. Personally I think we all underestimate how prevalent organised looting is and perhaps there's also some confirmation bias on our part where we find it more palatable to collect coins if we think they're coming from landowners trying to make a buck off of their land when they can.

My experience with less-organised looting comes from the Balearic islands, where the looters are local and are seemingly not part of some grand trafficking ring, yet they still have zero respect for the graves they loot and the objects (or skeletons) and archaeological context they destroy in the process. Maybe they sell to a market vendor on the mainland, some shady antiquities dealer (of which Barcelona has a reputation), or perhaps some criminally-connected middleman, but either way it would be a mistake to consider their "finds" incidental or some how to be justifiable just because they're locals who live in the area and aren't making much money. So even in the case where it may be a few individuals acting independently, I don't think that necessarily makes the picture any rosier than if it were a sophisticated criminal enterprise.

I should probably also clarify that when I think of coins coming to market, I think of those going to auction houses and dealers, not the $3 coins popping up in troves on eBay. I wouldn't be surprised if in some countries, e.g. the Balkans, these lower value coins do make up the majority of trafficked coins simply due to their prevalence.

1 minute ago, Rand said:

I suspect most coins people try to smuggle from Turkey and Greece are incidental finds, often on their own land.

What options do people have? 
- To give the coins to authorities. I have heard this may put people into trouble as they may be suspected of not returning all coins and investigated.
- To keep them. From Greek friends, I have heard that many families keep ancient coins they found (which could be a long time ago).
- To try selling the coins, feeling it is unfair for the governments to take away from them what they found on their own land, especially if they struggle financially, and they approach grey dealers.

These people may not see it as looting and organised crime, but governments may.

Even if the person who digs up the coins is not part of an organised criminal group, it doesn't mean that organised crime doesn't facilitate the rest of the trafficking. These farmers are likely not reaching out to auction houses and exporting the coins out of country themselves. I might also question the assumption that *most* coins coming to market are incidental finds given how methodical some looters are and even in countries like Greece there is evidence of large looting groups. In that case, it's even supposedly farmers and hunters performing most of the searching/digging but it's anything but incidental. 

Anyhow, whether that person sees their actions are looting or not is really not important. How does that help us as collectors? I could likewise say a drug dealer may not see their actions as trafficking and organised crime, but governments may.

I feel myself taking on the role of Devil's Advocate in this thread because there's so far been little discussion that would convince anybody of a different opinion. For the most part, much of what has been written above can be changed so it's from the perspective of a narcotics trafficker and the argument would hold equally well, which is to say not very.

5 hours ago, Severus Alexander said:

Thanks for this helpful post, @Kaleun96. I do wonder about this final point. There are two interpretations: 1) selling "looted" antiquities is a revenue stream for criminal organizations that engage in multiple criminal activities (e.g. illicit drugs, theft, racketeering, sex trafficking etc.), or 2) selling"looted" antiquities in any systematic way IS organized crime itself.

The ADA quote you give suggests it may be the second one: "However, looting and trafficking is an organised crime first and foremost." What?!

I did wonder that myself but I don't think the sentence you quoted indicates one way or the other whether it's only associated with organised crime because the looting is criminal or because the people looting are linked to organised crime. What you quoted only suggests that looting and trafficking is an organised crime itself but not if it's in isolation of other crimes. The same applies to the corruption issue too - if looting wasn't illegal, then would the issues of corruption disappear? Probably not entirely but to a large degree you would imagine.

The second study does touch on all of this, of course:

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d79a105a-a6aa-11e9-9d01-01aa75ed71a1

Quote

In some instances, the police and prosecutors come across this illegal activity while investigating other forms of crime, for example. In general, it appears that the conditions in which the art market currently operates may facilitate criminal behaviour in the case of unscrupulous traders. It is believed that the illicit trade in cultural goods sometimes operates as a mafia-style hierarchical organised criminal network, but other times as flexible networks of individuals and groups acting together opportunistically [...] As mentioned in section 3.1, the opinions of stakeholders on the extent to which the illicit trade is organised differ significantly.

Quote

Most of the interviewees also indicate that the organised crime groups that are involved in the transporting of cultural goods are also active in the narcotics and/or arms trade.

Quote

During the 1990s52, the area of Sarmizegetusa Regi, Romania, the ancient capital of the Dacian Kingdom, was looted by organised criminal group with international connections (Oberländer-Târnoveanu, n.d.).

There's a few more quotes but I think it's clear that the authors of the study consider both of the following to be true: trafficking in looted antiquities often requires organised criminals and is thus itself an organised crime, and trafficking in looted antiquities tends to attract the interest of existing organised crime networks.

-------------------------------

OK back to quoting you (not sure how to make a second quote that references the person who said it):

Quote

One of the objections we have (as expressed very nicely by @Hrefn) is that the export of coins from countries like Turkey where they have absolutely asinine antiquities laws is very definitely NOT (at least not always) "looting" or necessarily anything negative at all. It's people getting around unjust laws insofar as they can, so as to earn some money in a way they ought to have a right to.  It is not organized crime, at least not typically... although the ADA and others seem to be claiming it is organized crime by definition! This is not OK! We should not let them get away with it. 😠

The message we send should be: any country that has failed to adopt the UK system or something similar is failing to protect their cultural heritage. Draconian prohibitions on trade go even further, to the extent of being violations of human rights in some cases, and in all cases failing to be just.

Couple of things here where I disagree. Starting with "looting", I think this depends on your definition of "archaeological site". If you only use that to refer to places of habitation, then a lot of coins leaving Turkey illegally may not be technically "looted". However, if you use "archaeological site" to refer to any site that contains evidence of past human activity, even if it is just a single grave or deposit, then it is most definitely looting. However, either way, it is still theft. Whether you call it looting or not doesn't change that.

In regards to "unjust laws" and "they have a right to", this tends to be more of an American-centric viewpoint in my experience. Laws differ between countries, it's something more people here need to get used to. Laws in the legal sense aren't laws of universe (even American laws!) and there's not necessarily a right or a wrong - they are going to differ between countries. The fact of the matter is that many countries prohibit the excavation and selling of artefacts recovered from the ground as they are not the property of the individual. It may be different in the US but it's like that in many other places around the world. This means illegally exporting coins from their country of origin is theft or the participation in such. You can claim all you like that it's your human right to do so but you'll still end up in prison with a criminal record at the end of the day.

These types of arguments remind me of Americans that I've seen argue that a certain Amendment applies globally and thus countries that have laws infringing its rights are similarly unjust and are in violation of basic human rights. I'm afraid it doesn't work that way and it's better not to waste time on these types of arguments as you're likely going to have a difficult time convincing a court that everyone has a right to whatever they find in the ground. The best way forward is what you mention later, something along the lines of the current laws "failing to protect their cultural heritage" and it's better for everyone if a UK-style law is implemented.

As for whether it's OK for the ADA (N.B. the ADA doesn't take this view as far as I know, they take the view of many on this forum) and others to claim trafficking in antiquities is organised crime by definition, I don't see the problem with this, at least where they use it correctly. As the second study notes, not all trafficking is organised crime, but it does tend to require organisation of criminal elements. So where that burden on "organisation" is met, it seems reasonable to then call it organised crime. Of course if it were legal, it wouldn't be a crime, but you could say the same thing about narcotics and I don't think we should not use the term "organised crime" for that just because one day trafficking narcotics may be legal.

I'm guessing this article is probably already known to you but I happened to come across it last night and it seems quite relevant to the discussion at hand. If not new to you, hopefully it's new to someone else here at least!

https://www.academia.edu/8847316/Athenian_Imitations_from_Arabia_in_M_Huth_and_P_van_Alfen_Coinage_of_the_Caravan_Kingdoms_Studies_in_the_Monetization_of_Ancient_Arabia_ANS_Numismatic_Studies_25_New_York_2010_pp_227_256

1 hour ago, Hrefn said:

Interesting article.  It appears the purported rationales for the new law, which are to combat terrorism and prevent money laundering, are baseless.  Two separate investigations failed to demonstrate the antiquities trade was being used as a cover for money laundering or for financing terrorism.  

I find the CulturalPropertyNews (CPN) article and the sources it relies upon a little biased in its reporting of this particular aspect.

Here's what CPN say:

Quote

As the Facts & Figures page on the ADA website demonstrates, both reports ordered by the European Commission to find such evidence turned up nothing of significance on the money laundering front and nothing at all relating to terrorism financing

The "Facts & Figures" page cited from the ADA website further says:

Quote

Their ultimate objective? To prove that it is responsible for terrorism financing. The result? Nothing. Yet, even when their own studies can find no evidence to support their claims (See section on Deloitte[2]& Ecorys[3] reports below).

[2] Deloitte for the European Commission, June 2017: DG TAXUD [...] “As shown from the surveys to the Member States’ administrations, hard evidence on the existence of these effects is currently often lacking”. This statement annotates a bar chart showing zero evidence available of terrorism financing.

For starters, the objective of the study is to fight illicit trafficking in cultural goods, not necessarily just illicit trade that may be funding terrorists (see "Figure 32 - Objectives Tree"). As to the evidence, what does the actual report say? Well clearly the majority of respondents answered "No" for whether they had evidence for illicit trade financing terrorist activities, but they also answered no in the majority for other effects like corruption, organised crime, and destruction of cultural heritage/goods - all of which we hardly need evidence to believe are likely effects of illicit trade of cultural goods. Corruption is essentially part and parcel of illicit trade, as is organised crime, and we all know looters are not the best archaeologists out there.

Separately, the study claims there is evidence that ISIS profits on the order of $150-$200 million USD in trafficking illicit cultural goods each year but unfortunately I did not see a citation for that figure.

For the second study from Ecorys, the quotes ADA cites in the footnotes are generally fair and representative (of the ones I looked them up) except for two cases from the same section. First, ADA quotes around the bit where the study says at least one criminal case linking illicit trade to terrorism has been brought to European court. The second, is where the study explicitly warns policy makers against focussing too strongly on the terrorism angle and instead emphasising illicit trade is first and foremost an organised crime issue

from Illicit trade in cultural goods in Europe, p.17 - https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d79a105a-a6aa-11e9-9d01-01aa75ed71a1

Additionally, as far as I can see, ADA has ignored the section 3.5.3 Relation to terrorism and terrorism financing which does discuss several specific examples of known terrorist groups and/or armed factions being involved in the looting and trade of illicit goods. The study further mentions that it's difficult to say exactly what the involvement might be in general as it's hard to identify individuals acting as part of loosely-organised groups versus individuals acting independently and taking advantage of the situation. The study also cast doubt on the earlier $150-$200 million figure from the first report but says undeniably that ISIS has been making some money from illicit trade. 

Quote

p.114 - "Nevertheless, it is a fundamental reality of the trade that some of the money paid in Europe for objects excavated in or traded through territory controlled by terrorist organisations must ‘trickle down’ to the organisations involved."

p.114 - "There is no evidence to support claims that Daesh might have been making millions or even billions of Euros annually from the trade, or that the trade might have been a major source of revenue. Nevertheless, there is evidence that terrorist and other armed insurgency groups do profit from the trade."

p.114 - "Some research states that it is a ‘marginal source’ (CAT, 2015); other research explains that, while the money made of trafficking in cultural goods is not significant, it may be still important in relative terms or as diversification of the revenue portfolio for the budget of terrorist groups (Altaweel, 2016; Howard et al., 2016)."

p.114 - "Most existing research suggests that the involvement of terrorist organisations in trafficking cultural goods—and making money thereof—is limited to territory that they control (van Lit, 2016; FATF, 2015; Brodie 2018). There is no evidence that terrorist groups organise illicit trade activities outside their subject territories, where it is more likely that transnational organized criminal groups are involved—the so-called crime-terror nexus (Makarenko 2012)."

I could go on but will hold off for now. My reason for all of the above is to keep the conversation fair and honest. There are undoubtedly genuine flaws and shortcomings in the studies as well as the policy being implemented but we should make sure that we're not creating strawman arguments and misrepresenting the discussion by cherry-picking quotes or relying on sources that we can't trust to be honest and unbiased in their own reporting.

More importantly, defeating such policies by arguing that their statistics or evidence on links to terrorism are lacking won't help us in the long run. The studies seem to be in agreement that organised crime is by far the largest contributing factor to illicit trade and I don't doubt that the lawmakers will have any trouble passing similar regulation that focusses only on the issue of illicit goods traded via organised crime. In other words, we'll waste time and energy defeating a strawman argument. Though it may have some short-term benefit in the sense that the studies openly admit that linking illicit trade to terrorism helps with publicity, optics, and funding. However, I doubt in the long run that the loss of this "link" will stop these types of laws in their tracks.

CollecOnline's 3D gallery functionality is fun and novel, here's an example of one of @Qcumbor's collections:

https://www.colleconline.com/fr/collections/gallery3d/5556/monnaies-antiquite-av-jc-ap-romaines-republicaines-imperiales-republique-romaine

5 euro/month is quite reasonable too, you won't be able to do it yourself for cheaper.

3 hours ago, matt23 said:

I've found other similar obverse dies in P43, but no known examples of the Reverse (wit lyre under seat). Can't find any forgeries http://www.forgerynetwork.com/default.aspx,

(I'm new to ancients - so seeking more experienced advise. thanks)  -other resources for due diligence ?

Perhaps see if you can find a reverse of the type with the Lyre in the left field and with a similar style Zeus and throne.

Unfortunately there are a lot of fakes of Alexander III drachms out there so I'm a bit cautious about buying some in particular, especially if they were unique types. I'm also mostly familiar with the tetradrachm types, which I collect, so am less knowledgeable when it comes to which of the drachm types to be more wary of.

Edward Newell in Alexander Hoards II: Demanhur suggested that die adjustment may be a hold-over from Lydian, and then later Achaemenid, mint practices where the obverse and reverse dies were somewhat rectangular in shape (i.e. wider than they were tall) and needed to fit a similarly shaped flan. If they were out of alignment, a large portion of the die would not be in contact with the flan.

He then suggests that this practice may have just become the norm even when more circular flans were adopted, though it's not quite clear why you then see some mints care about die adjustment for one issue but then not for a slightly later issue (I'm thinking of some Alexander III mints here). Perhaps it reflects a change in mint administration.

Lloyd Taylor talks about die adjustment practices in many of his articles on Alexandrine mints. Here's a snippet from The Earliest Alexander III Tetradrachm Coinage of Babylon: Iconographic Development and Chronology on why the practice was possibly abandoned at one mint:

Looks like this type with the lyre below the throne wasn't known to Price. I did find an obverse die match, however:

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=2370983

Given it's an unknown type, it might be worth doing some additional due diligence and checking for any known fakes with this reverse or using this obverse die.

On 6/29/2023 at 4:51 PM, Edessa said:

Well, this is just my poor attempt to play with Excel for my 177 examples, but it looks rather random except for a period around 60 to 75 BC. 

I wonder if this just appears random because it's making space for each Crawford type by distributing the labels around the circumference evenly? Usually die axis is recorded as an integer but this chart suggests a continuous number as if the angle was measured precisely.

Most of my collection is Greek but I have a fun interactive chart on my website that plots the die axis distribution of my collection: https://artemis-collection.com/data-statistics/charts/die-axis/

You can watch the reverse example spin as you hover around the chart 😁

26 minutes ago, DonnaML said:

All my personal experience was with civil cases, and it appears that filed documents in criminal cases are not as readily available. How the press got hold of the charging affidavit in Beale's case, I'm not sure, although I suppose the DA's office probably provided it. I imagine that any such affidavit in Vecchi's case will become public soon enough.

Right now, all I see on the public docket is the list of charges and the basic case information:

Maybe it needs to be requested from the court itself, or a FOIL request to the DA or police department?
https://ww2.nycourts.gov/foil/CourtRecords.shtml

Anyone feel like ponying up the $90 or so it costs to request the court documents? Perhaps there's a similar affidavit to the one written by Brent Easter for Beale. Though I'm not sure if that was how those documents were originally acquired or if they came from somewhere else.

The change in lighting and photography has had a bigger impact on the appearance than the cleaning so it's a bit difficult for me to judge what has changed if I'm honest, and I've been staring at it for a good minute or two! There are some minor changes but I can't be sure it's not just the lighting.

I'd be careful with the Naval Jelly though, it contains both phosphoric acid and sulfuric acid so I would think there's a risk of it removing the protective patina and allowing the surfaces to corrode further.

5 hours ago, DANTE said:

Interesting coin to have. Congratulations. Given that Pars and Gorny have a good reputation it's not likely that they're modern forgeries. Judging by the missing border the third example probably has been zealously cleaned, other than that I don't see anything wrong with them. They could well be imitations. I've seen some crude imitations from Soloi struck for Tarsos as tribute, so it's not unheard of. (although this was probably not under Mazaios, but earlier. These Soloi coins were probably stuck to help finance Pharnabazos' Egyptian expedition. They had the 'Ares' warrior on the obv. and the typical grape bunch from Soloi on the rev.) So tribute/tax from a neighboring city is a realistic possibility. It would certainly help explain the crude style and the odd combination of reverses and types ( note that on the third 'official' specimen you show the lion faces right instead of left: that's unusual in itself.) Running the capital of a double satrapy and maintaining a fleet is a costly affair, so taxes had to be paid. It's not impossible that a neighboring city paid their taxes in imitational coinage rather than in bullion or in their own local coinage. The Soloi analogy suggests that it was an acceptable practice at the time. I don't see any reason why this couldn't be another example of the phenomenon. (If only I had kept the auction photograph of the Soloi example... Seeing your coin makes me sorry I didn't). It's the best explanation I can come up with.

FWIW: could it be that the whole point of the king on the obverse of these coins was to emphasize loyalty and submission to the Achaemenid Empire? This was the time right after the Satrapal Revolt, so a period when the rights and authority of the Persian king had to be re-established. What better way to show your loyalty and submission than to depict not Baal, but Artaxerxes himself on the throne? Just a thought I got when seeing your coin. ...🙂I may be wrong, of course.

Very interesting, I didn't know about those imitations. Do you know how it was determined that they're likely Soloi tributes struck for Tarsos rather than just a usual imitation in the traditional sense? I think if you're right and they were struck to be used somewhat officially, that would be a really useful to angle to then look at these Artaxerxes III imitations by.

Is this one of the Soloi imitations?

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=9338362

Your theory about the Artaxerxes III sounds familiar, perhaps Moysey or such has theorised something similar. It would be useful to know exactly when that type was produced, if closer to 361 BC than 334 BC, it would certainly make sense that it could be a response to the Satrap's revolt. Around the time of that revolt, we also saw Datames issue a type that bucked the trend, supposedly depicting himself in Persian attire on a Persian throne. Perhaps Artaxerxes III, or maybe even just Mazaios, was well aware of the effect of that propaganda and responded in kind once he came to power in 359/8 BC. Though this is a bit earlier than is suggested by Frank Kovacs, who suggests that Artaxerxes III headdress is Egyptian and thus more likely to have been minted after he became ruler of Egypt in 343 BC.

For those familiar with Cilician staters, in particular those from Tarsos, you'll be quite used to seeing the seated Baaltars obverse from several types produced in the 4th century BC. Minor changes can be seen in his posture, or in what he's holding, or the symbols found in the fields, but you can always identify Baaltars whether it's from a type minted under Pharnabazos or under Balakros 50 years later.

There exists, however, a very rare issue of staters that feature a different seated person on the obverse, or at least one that appears different from Baaltars. The individual has a different headdress, hair style, clothing, throne, posture, physique, and holds a lotus flower in his hand in addition to the lotus-tipped sceptre. This naturally calls back to the King of Kings depicted on the relief of Apadana, who holds a lotus flower in one hand and a sceptre in the other.

The usual depiction of Baaltars on a stater issued by Mazaios while Satrap of Tarsos. NOT MY COIN.

The type in question, a rare stater likely issued under Mazaios' rule somewhere between 361 and 334 BC. NOT MY COIN.

Relief of Apadana, possibly Darius the Great.

The significant difference between this depiction and the usual depiction of Baaltars has led many to hypothesise that the individual on this rare type of coins is in fact Artaxerxes III rather than Baaltars. Though the obverse legend still reads "Baaltars", the individual otherwise seems incongruous with the Tarsiote deity.

CNG has the following to say on the type:

Quote

 

The appearance of Baaltars on this issue is significantly different from the relatively standard depiction of the deity on other coins of Tarsos. While the diety is typically shown nude to his waist, here the figure is fully clothed with attire that closely resembles that on the figure that appears on the royal Persian coinage struck at Sardes. More importanly, though, is the headdress on the figure. Baaltars typically wears a laurel wreath or no headdress, while this portrait shows the figure wearing an elaborate headdress. In a recent article, Frank Kovacs analysed the type, and argues that this figure is actually the Great King Araxeres III Ochos, in the guise of Baaltars, and the headdress is the combined crown of Upper and Lower Egypt, thus his appearance here is as pharaoh of Egypt (cf. F. Kovacs, "Two Persian Pharaonic Potraits" in JNG L [2000]; see also M. Thompson, in MN XII [1968], pp. 11–2, who notes the figure wearing a "high crown of Egyptian type"). This is plausible, as Araxerxes was the first pharaoh of the Thirty-First Dynasty of Egypt, and the date of his rule there, 343-338 BC, comports well with this issue under Mazaios.

O. Casabonne, while acknowledging that the figure here may represent a synthesis of Baaltars and the Great King, disagrees with the identification of the headdress as the Egyptian crown. Instead, he views the headdress as being a Phrigian style cap that is often depicted in contemporary art as being worn by warriors (cf. Casabonne, p. 121, fig. 8), but is here shown with the cheek guards in a raised position.

Nonetheless, it is doubtless that the figure here is a synthesized portrait of Baaltars and the Persian Great King. The fractional silver of this issue (see the following lot), interestingly, may be most instructive, as the headdress on the figure is shown wearing a crown that is identical to that on the figure of the royal Achaemenid coinage and his robes have interlocking circles reminiscent of the darics of Carradice Type IV Late (cf. M. Thompson, op. cit. , p. 12).

 

Now, on to my coin and why I've written the above! I noticed a coin with the rare Artaxerxes III obverse type at a Pars auction sometime last year, where it eventually went unsold. It reappeared again this year at another one of their auctions and I decided to pull the trigger. Why the hesitation? The reverse type. The reverse type is not known to have been paired with this obverse, instead it belongs to a different Mazaios type that features a lion attacking a stag. This odd combination, in addition to the poorer style, led me to think it was likely an imitation, even though it was not described as such.

An imitation of the "Artaxerxes III" type stater issued during the time of Mazaios' satrapy 361-334 BC.

Additionally, after some sleuthing I found an obverse die match to another example but this one was paired with a different reverse type! This reverse type was even more odd as it was one not used since the time of Pharnabazos and Datames, Mazaios' predecessors. This reverse depicts a portrait of a helmeted bearded male, often thought to be Ares. The obviously poor style of this example made it pretty certain in my mind that we're dealing with an imitation. I eventually discovered another obverse die match, this time to a coin that had been previously listed at auction by Gorny & Mosch (2016) and Ira & Larry Goldberg (2018), where it had since picked up some artificial toning, before being sold at Leu Numismatik in 2019 for a whopping 2,800 CHF.

Strangely, this second die match coin had a third reverse type - this time the *correct* reverse type: a recumbent lion with a bow placed above. So we now have one obverse die paired with three different reverse dies, all of which are different types. Very odd indeed. One wonders why a group imitating this type would have gone to these lengths.

Blue lines link to the authentic non-imitative versions for the obverse and reverse of my coin. The red lines indicate obverse die matches to other examples of my coin, one of which was sold three times (all photos listed).

There's always the possibility that these are not imitations but modern forgeries, though I'm inclined to think it's more likely to be the former. Not only due to the treatment my coin has received, and its convincing surfaces and condition, but also because the imitative style is quite similar to that found on other imitations of both Tarsos staters and also Babylion lion staters. Anyhow, I'll leave it up to you to decide and I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

2 hours ago, robinjojo said:

I just got off the phone with HJB.  It seems that the lot sold for more than my bid, which was the reserve.  What confused me is that the lot appeared in the after sale at my bid, the reserve price, but apparently someone bid more in the after sale, which raises the question, why even bother to bid the minimum (reserve) during the buy/bid phase?  I was under the impression that the winning bids at the close were the ones securing the lots.  Very confusing.

Hmm something sounds wrong, the after sale should just be a "buy now" price essentially - you can't bid as far as I know. The price would be set at the reserve if the lot went unsold in the auction phase. So I don't see how someone could have bid more than you at this point. Maybe the person on the phone got it wrong?

Here's a quote from HJB's after sale email:

Quote

Please also find below links of lots in the 223rd Buy or Bid after sale listed with the reserve price that we are willing to accept.

Is it possible someone placed the same bid as you but before you did? Or does the HJB platform register the bid immediately and tell you if someone has already placed a bid for that amount? If they had placed the bid first, and that was their maximum, technically they would win the item for the same amount that you bid. I have never bid through it so am not sure myself how it works on HJB's platform.