Kaleun96

2 hours ago, kirispupis said:

Great find! Eventually I'd like to pick up a Damaskos for myself.

One thing that might be relevant: I've noticed that Damaskos doesn't seem to have minted any coins before Alexander. Therefore, I presume they would have had to import every engraver.

As you mention, it's hard to know why they would have taken one all the way from Amphipolis. Maybe he was working in another city in Asia Minor and they transferred the die and not the die maker? Maybe he transferred to Damaskos but died soon afterwards?

These are my favorite types of coins - those you can write a novel about...

Thanks! I can recommend waiting for an example from Damaskos with dies by Taylor's "Engraver 5" as I think they're the nicest style for both obverse and reverse. Thankfully they're relatively common too. kapphnwn's example is actually from that engraver as well (as is one of my other Damaskos examples).

Definitely possible they imported all of their engravers, almost certainly some of them I would think. Taylor speculates that they may have come from Arados or elsewhere in Phoenicia. I think it's also possible that local engravers who worked on non-coin mediums could have been trained by a few imported engravers from other mints and that's why we end up with such a unique style. If all of the engravers had previously honed their skills at other Alexadrine mints, I suspect that the first dies would be more similar to the dies of mints they had come from (e.g. like the "Amphipolis" obverse of my coin). Hard to really say though but it's fun to speculate!

31 minutes ago, kapphnwn said:

Very interesting coin. @Kaleun96 I do believe it would be possible that a coin struck in Amphipolis circa 331 BC could have been seen by a die cutter at Damaskos circa 325 BC and possibly copied.  Once the war with Sparta was concluded many of the men hired by Antipater would probably be looking for employment elsewhere and there was a lot of potential in the newly conquered territories of the east. However  However I am am somewhat concerned about the treatment of the eye. I have only one coin of Alexander from the mint of Damaskos

Alexander III Ar Tetradrachm Damaskos 326-323 BC. Obv Head of beardless Herakles right wearing Lions skin headdress, Rv Zeus Aetophoros seated left holding eagle and scepter. HGC 910j Taylor Group 2.2.2. A11/P/1 This coin referenced 17.20 grms 25 mm. Photo by W. Hansen

Taylor makes the hypothesis that this mint may have been in operation for about a year. it may have been a bit longer as the length of time needed to strike this coinage would require fairly intensive production. I tend to favor a slightly later date of circa 325-324BC as the production of coins from this mint would coincide with the return of the army from India.    Interestingly only tetradrachms are known to have been struck at this mint,  

While I do think it's likely early Amphipolis tetradrachms would have made their way to Damaskos by this point, I'm inclined to think the obverse of my coin is not someone's attempt at copying an existing style. Primarily because we don't see such a strong resemblance to the style of another mint in any other obverses from Damaskos, even though one can draw some parallels with styles seen at Arados and others. It would perhaps be more plausible if we knew most engravers were quite capable of replicating other styles closely and that they just often chose not to, in which case it could be argued that this was someone's attempt at being an "Amphipolis" engraver for a day. I guess the trouble here is that the evidence required to suggest an engraver's style could be copied accurately is difficult to distinguish from the evidence that is used to identify distinct engravers in general (i.e. how do you separate an imitator from the original artist).

Another reason is that this obverse is paired with a relatively late type in the sequence of the mint (Series 2.4). If the obverse was paired with one of the Series 1 reverses, that would possibly indicate the engraver was looking to copy an existing style from elsewhere at the beginning of the mint's operation when he had little to go on. But mid Series 2 you would expect the engraver likely had plenty of Series 1, if not Series 2, obverse dies to copy from even if all of these dies were produced within a relatively short space of time.

Quote

However I am am somewhat concerned about the treatment of the eye

Are you talking about the scrapes over the eye or the somewhat odd style of the eye? The eye socket in particular is strange, almost like it was half-finished or not struck well. The sharp ridge of the socket that goes in front of the eye and along the nose in particular stood out to me when I first saw it. Almost looks like the sharp edge you see from some circular countermarks yet that doesn't appear to be what it is.

In a recent auction I picked up the following coin because it immediately stood out to me as an unusual specimen: the reverse was clearly a type from Alexander III's Damaksos mint yet the obverse was of a style only found at Amphipolis!

Head of Herakles left, wearing lion-skin headdress, paws tied before neck. AΛEΞANΔPOY. Zeus enthroned left, eagle in right hand, scepter in left hand; ram in left field; four pellets below throne. Price 3210; Taylor 'Damaskos' 2.4.2

Such a finding is relatively rare for Alexander's tetradrachms, even though we know of several cases of die sharing between mints as well as engravers travelling between mints. The oft-cited example is a Sidonian engraver who was known to be at the founding of that mint, then travelled a short distance to Tyre to help setup their mint, then heading north to Tarsos, before finally ending up in Arados(1)! It has also been suggested that engravers and/or dies of AV staters from Arados were transferred to mints in Asia Minor, Phoenicia, and possibly even Macedonia (2). In each case, it's the obverse style that is key to identifying the relationship between mints.

Two aspects that are particularly unique about this coin are: (a) the distances involved, and (b) the disparate style introduced at the new mint. Firstly, the previous example of engraver transfer between mints for tetradrachms involved relatively short distances with the engraver hopping about from city to city mainly on the Phoenician coast. The engraver of the AV staters at Arados that wound up in Macedonia does illustrate that sometimes greater distances were involved but this has yet to be seen when it comes to engravers of Alexandrine tetradrachms.

Secondly, in the cases where engravers have popped up at new mints, the obverse style is typically not too far removed from the existing or competing style for that mint and there's evidence that the engraver stays for a period of time to create several dies and usually spanning multiple types. I've been unable to find any other evidence of this engraver at Damaskos, whether looking for more examples of this obverse die or other examples of obverse dies of this style paired with Damaskos reverse types. One possibility is that this obverse die was a one-off, perhaps never even intended to go into production given that we don't see this engraver's hand again at the mint. Though one would wonder why they would be transferred in the first place if only to produce a single die, unless they were transferred for an administrative position or similar.

For those not familiar with the style of Herakles found at Amphipolis and Damaskos, I will briefly attempt to show how they differ. The best source for understanding the variation at Damaskos would be Lloyd Taylor's "The Damaskos Mint of Alexander the Great" (2017) die study as this contains plates of all known obverse dies at that time. The figure below should give a general indication of the styles you typically find at this mint, however. Even though there is a fair amount of variation within these examples, Damascene traits can be identified in all of them that make coins of this mint fairly easy to identify without even seeing the reverses. The treatment to the lion headdress in particular is somewhat unique, as well as the jutting face of Herakles with strong features.

Compare those styles of Herakles with the following two coins: left is an example of Price 23 from the Amphipolis mint, an early lifetime tetradrachm; right is the obverse from my coin. An obvious difference can be immediately seen in the neck area of the lion headdress, with the parallel lines running horizontally in addition to the two diagonally lines running up to meet the jaw with a slight curve. The pointed lion's mane formed of thick leafy locks, and the short bottom jaw that rests next to Herakles' own well-defined jaw bone. The style of these early types from Amhpipolis are likewise unique across Alexander's mints and are readily identifiable; they're not likely to be confused with the obverses from other mints, let alone Damaskos.

That being said, I wouldn't rush to claim that the obverse on the left was engraved by the same hand as that of the obverse on the right. It could be possible and there does seem to be individual engravers identifiable at Amphipolis at this time but it would be a stretch to claim without further evidence. It would be interesting if the obverse found on the Damaskos coin was also found to have been used first at Amphipolis but it seems unlikely they would have gone to the trouble given Damaskos doesn't appear to have been particularly short on engravers at this time (Taylor estimates as many as nine engravers). So that brings us back to the question of why: why would an engraver trained in the style of Amphipolis find his way to Damaskos and engrave a die there? We will probably never know but I'll be keeping my eye out for more examples of this die, or engraver, just in case.

1. Lloyd Tayler. 2020. Sidon to Tyre: the Macedonian administration and relative chronology.
2. Lloyd Taylor. 2020. On the Reattribution of some Byblos Alexanders to Arados II.

On 6/9/2023 at 4:16 PM, YOTHR said:

MINERVA
 

 

Minerva is an ancient Italic goddess of probably Etruscan origin. In the more recent Capitoline triad of gods, she was assigned the cella on the right of Iuppiter (Iuno on the left). Her functions were gradually adapted to those of the Greek Athena. She was the patroness of craftsmen, guilds and trades, as well as artists, teachers and doctors. The basic meaning lay in the divine power of the mind, of sensible thinking and inventing. Already in the Etruscan cult, she was regarded as the lightning-slinging goddess of the heights and of all sensual inventions, especially also of sacred flute music. Although Rome also knew the lightning-slinging and warlike Minerva, the Greek Pallas, her peaceful qualities predominated until Minerva finally became quite unilaterally the goddess of all inventions and of all art and science. She also brought the art of weaving, chariot-making, harrows and ploughs to mankind. She was also regarded as the city goddess of Rome. Minerva also seemed to be connected with the sea in particular. This was evident at the first lectisternium (hosting of the gods) of 217 BC, where she appeared together with Neptune. Minerva had not only reached Italy by ship, but had also built the first ship, the Argo. It is therefore hardly surprising that depictions show the goddess in connection with shipbuilding (especially sails).

Varro counts Minerva among the deities that the Romans adopted from the Sabines. An ancient temple of Minerva is said to have been located in the castle courtyard of the Sabine city of Orvinium. However, there is little further evidence of the Sabine origin of the Minerva cult. In general, there are only scanty references to the worship of Minerva in Italy. A Minerva sanctuary in Bruttium, allegedly founded by Odysseus, was of Greek origin and the same is true of the temple at Surrentum in Campania, which is also traced back to Odysseus. The very numerous inscribed proofs of their worship in Latium and Lower Italy all belong to the imperial period and betray Roman influence. There are also references to a Minerva cult in Eturia, where she played a role in the Etruscan doctrine of lightning. The tradition assumes that Minerva originated in Falerii, a city which, due to its location and history, occupied a mediating position between Etruscan and Latin culture. There is also evidence of the veneration of Minerva for Falerii in very early times. Minerva probably found her way into Rome through Faliscan (or southern Etruscan) craftsmen. There is no reason to assume that this view of the goddess had already been formed under the influence of Greek ideas; rather, the similarity of this goddess of craftsmanship will have led to the equation of Minerva with Athena.

Symbols of the goddess were the owl, snake and the olive wreath or olive tree. Since cunning and wisdom were just as important as courage and endurance for a general in war, Minerva was also depicted with a helmet, shield and armour. The owl in particular represented the wisdom of the goddess. She is often depicted with her right arm raised. Seated images of Minerva are rarer, but nevertheless widespread. The best-known image of Minerva stood in an unknown city Roman temple and is made of Lusensian marble and a robe of reddish-yellow alabaster; the hair was made of black basalt. The statue from the early imperial period represented the peaceful part of Minerva, because numerous craftsmen were needed to build the empire. The visual arts never made the Roman Minerva into a type of its own, but rather consistently used representational forms of the Greek Athena, which were transferred to her without any special modifications.

Minerva was only really incorporated into the Roman state cult in the form of the Capitoline Triad. At least, there is no evidence of a separate cult of Minerva in Rome at a later date. On the Capitol, her cella was located to the right of Iuppiter. The fact that she preferably represented the spiritual principle, intelligence and inventiveness on the Capitol can be seen from the use of hammering the yearly nail into the wall between her cella and Iuppiter's cella, because the number was considered to be an invention of Minerva. Details of the ritual of the Minerva's service are not known. According to some accounts, calves were sacrificed to her. Minerva, like Diana, was a virgin goddess (Greek Athena Parthenos) and mercilessly punished all those who came too close to this virginity. In a religion dominated by men, she played an important role for women. Numerous finds suggest female puberty rites. In this sense, she also watched over law and order. The cult of Minerva Medica and her sanctuary on the Esquiline belong to the Republican period. The idea of her as a goddess of healing probably originated purely on Italic-Roman soil and has to do with her function as the patron goddess of doctors, which immediately made her a goddess of healing herself. From the 3rd century BC onwards, Minerva was thoroughly Hellenised. At the great lecisternium of 217 BC, Minerva appears for the first time, as mentioned above, paired with Neptunus-Poseidon in the Greek manner.

Unlike other ancient deities in Rome, Minerva did not originally possess a flamen (she only received this with Augustus). This is because the goddess had nothing to do with the old peasant religion of the native inhabitants of Latium. It is therefore not surprising that Minerva is associated with only one plant: the olive tree. This was only introduced to Rome under the Tarquinians. Numerous olive oil vessels from that time bore the coat of arms of Athens with Pallas Athena (imported Attic quality oil). As with some cult images of Hera or Artemis, her statue was also decorated with appropriate branches on holidays. Pompey consecrated a sanctuary to Minerva, in whose dedicatory inscription he ostentatiously depicted his war fleet, thus almost presenting her as the victory-bringing goddess. Varro calls Minerva the protector of the olive tree. Cicero worshipped Minerva as the protector of the city and after his banishment donated the image of this goddess to the Capitol.

Domitian, who boasted the very special favour of Minerva, celebrated the Quinquatrus annually at his Albanum with a splendid festival at which, apart from venationes and gladiatorial and stage games, there were also competitions of poets and orators. However, it was considered sacrilegious that Domitian also called himself the son of Minerva, a goddess whose youthfulness was always emphasised. Domitian also had numerous altars erected to her. The forum, completed by his successor Nerva, was also dedicated to her. Her popularity also seemed to have spilled over into the population, for more and more images (e.g. on bricks) appeared. In the sanctuary of Vesta on the Roman Forum, the Palladium (i.e. Palladion), a cult image of the lance-bearing Athena supposedly originating from Troy, was kept. The image was supposed to vouch for the security of the Roman state. Unlike most other archaic representations of the gods, the Palladium was not simply a rigid figure, but worked through movement and flowing garments.

The feast of Quinquatrus on 19 March already had the addition of Minerva in the pre-Caesarian calendar. Old calendar notes show that the goddess displaced Mars from this day. The craftsmen celebrated the festival on the fifth day after the Ides of March and added four more days, so that the festivities lasted until 23 March. When this celebration was made a five-day one, gladiatorial games were held on the later (not the actual holiday) days, in addition to other amusements, since Augutus. These were also the few holidays that applied to pupils and teachers. On this day the teachers received their wages. Ovid listed numerous other occupations that celebrated the quinquatrus: Wool and flax spinners, weavers, walkers, washers, dyers, shoemakers, carpenters, physicians, painters, sculptors, toreutes (artists who chased and drove metal) as well as poets and actors. The latter were only allowed to take part in the festivities from 207 BC as thanksgiving for a choral song composed by Livius Andronicus for the successful reconciliation of the gods. Minerva was also especially honoured at guild festivals, such as Quinquatrus minusculae on 13 June.

A preserved altar refers to the establishment of the Minerva cult by Augustus. The statue of Minerva donated by him stood on a column in front of the temple. From the 1st century AD, it became a reference point in military diplomas. Many of these documents were attached to a wall near the statue. The proximity made sense, as many veterans settled there as craftsmen. From Nero onwards, the congiarium (imperial grain donation) was distributed near a minerva statue (with an owl on its right hand). Perhaps this was the same statue. East of Rome, a minerva temple was excavated that had already existed in the 2nd half of the 6th century BC. Numerous terracotta statues up to life-size from the 4th century BC were recovered from this temple. A mineral image from around 400 BC has particularly terrifying features. A three-headed snake coils around its right arm, a reptile counting many heads around its body. Serpents also dominate helmet ornaments and a round shield supported by a tritonic (sea deity) demon. Here, too, Minerva's connection to the sea is evident. As Minerva Medica, doctors also paid homage to her in a temple on the Esquiline. As the city goddess of Rome, she had a temple on the Aventine since Etruscan times; very close to the sanctuary of Diana. The temple was the main sanctuary of the tradesmen organised in collegia. Augustus renewed it, perhaps even by building a new temple. From this time on, the goddess also had her own flamen. A sacellum of Minerva was situated on the lower slope of the Caelius, towards the plain between it and the Carinae, which was probably erected in 241 BC, probably because of the capture of Falerii. The goddess on the Caelius was called Minerva Capta, the meaning of which, however, was doubtful. Minerva's proximity to handicraft and artistic work is the reason for her appearance in numerous Lararia. The bronze and silver statuettes of the imperial period were probably preceded by examples carved from wood (possibly olive tree) in the Republic (source: imperium-romanum).

 

Today there is no "Coin of the day" - today there is a whole series of new Domitianus & Minerva denarii in my shop.

A particular devotee of Minerva was the Emperor Domitian, who often had her depicted on the reverse of his coins (as on the denarius presented here). Hardly any Roman emperor had his favourite patron deity minted on coins as frequently as Domitian: Minerva, the goddess of war and wisdom, perhaps appealed to this ruler particularly because she came third within the Capitoline triad of gods after Jupiter and Juno, just as Domitian was the third emperor of the Flavian dynasty after his father Vespasian and brother Titus. Only a few years after his accession to power, he had four types of representations of the goddess made, which subsequently became the dominant coin motif of his silver coinage. But I am not an expert on Domitian and his preference for Minerva, here @David Atherton can certainly say more about it as an expert.

 

 

Titus Flavius Domitianus, as Imperator Caesar Domitianus Augustus
Denarius of the Roman Imperial Period 88/89 AD; Material: Silver; Diameter: 19mm; Weight: 3.50g; Mint: Rome; Reference: RIC II, Part 1 (second edition) Domitian 669; Obverse: Head of Domitian, laureate, right. The Inscription reads: IMP CAES DOMIT AVG GERM P M TR P VIII for Imperator Caesar Domitianus Augustus Germanicus, Pontifex Maximus, Tribunicia Potestate Octava (Imperator, Caesar, Domitian, Augustus, conqueror of the Germans, high priest, holder of tribunician power for the eighth time); Reverse: Minerva standing left, holding thunderbolt and spear; shield at side. The Inscription reads: IMP XIX COS XIIII CENS P P P for Imperator Undevicesimum, Consul Quartum Decimum, Censor Perpetuus, Pater Patriae (Imperator for the 19th time, consul for the 14th time, censor for life, father of the nation).

Klick here for showing the coin at my VCoins Shop and here at the MA-Shop

 

 

Titus Flavius Domitianus, as Imperator Caesar Domitianus Augustus

Denarius of the Roman Imperial Period 88/89 AD; Material: Silver; Diameter: 19mm; Weight: 3.21g; Mint: Rome; Reference: RIC II, Part 1 (second edition) Domitian 670; Obverse: Head of Domitian, laureate, right. The Inscription reads: IMP CAES DOMIT AVG GERM P M TR P VIII for Imperator Caesar Domitianus Augustus Germanicus, Pontifex Maximus, Tribunicia Potestate Octava (Imperator, Caesar, Domitian, Augustus, conqueror of the Germans, high priest, holder of tribunician power for the eighth time); Reverse: Minerva standing left, holding spear. The Inscription reads: IMP XIX COS XIIII CENS P P P for Imperator Undevicesimum, Consul Quartum Decimum, Censor Perpetuus, Pater Patriae (Imperator for the 19th time, consul for the 14th time, censor for life, father of the nation).

 

Klick here for showing the coin at my VCoins Shop and here at the MA-Shop

 

 

 

Titus Flavius Domitianus, as Imperator Caesar Domitianus Augustus

Denarius of the Roman Imperial Period 90/91 AD; Material: Silver; Diameter: 19mm; Weight: 3.51g; Mint: Rome; Reference: RIC II, Part 1 (second edition) Domitian 719; Obverse: Head of Domitian, laureate, right. The Inscription reads: IMP CAES DOMIT AVG GERM P M TR P X for Imperator Caesar Domitianus Augustus Germanicus, Pontifex Maximus, Tribunicia Potestate Decima (Imperator, Caesar, Domitian, Augustus, conqueror of the Germans, high priest, holder of tribunician power for the tenth time); Reverse: Minerva advancing right, holding spear and shield. The Inscription reads: IMP XXI COS XV CENS P P P for Imperator Vicesimum Primum, Consul Quintum Decimum, Censor Perpetuus, Pater Patriae (Imperator for the 21st time, consul for the 15th time, censor for life, father of the nation).

 

Klick here for showing the coin at my VCoins Shop and here at the MA-Shop

 

 

 

Titus Flavius Domitianus, as Imperator Caesar Domitianus Augustus

Denarius of the Roman Imperial Period 93/94 AD; Material: Silver; Diameter: 19mm; Weight: 3.78g; Mint: Rome; Reference: RIC II, Part 1 (second edition) Domitian 763; Obverse: Head of Domitian, laureate, right. The Inscription reads: IMP CAES DOMIT AVG GERM P M TR P XIII for Imperator Caesar Domitianus Augustus Germanicus, Pontifex Maximus, Tribunicia Potestate Tertia Decima (Imperator, Caesar, Domitian, Augustus, conqueror of the Germans, high priest, holder of tribunician power for the 13th time); Reverse: Minerva standing left, holding thunderbolt and spear; shield at side. The Inscription reads: IMP XXII COS XVI CENS P P P for Imperator Secundum Vicesimum, Consul Sextum Decimum, Censor Perpetuus, Pater Patriae (Imperator for the 22nd time, consul for the 16th time, censor for life, father of the nation).

 

Klick here for showing the coin at my VCoins Shop and here at the MA-Shop

 

 

 

Titus Flavius Domitianus, as Imperator Caesar Domitianus Augustus

Denarius of the Roman Imperial Period 95/96 AD; Material: Silver; Diameter: 19mm; Weight: 3.55g; Mint: Rome; Reference: RIC II, Part 1 (second edition) Domitian 787; Obverse: Head of Domitian, laureate, right. The Inscription reads: IMP CAES DOMIT AVG GERM P M TR P XV for Imperator Caesar Domitianus Augustus Germanicus, Pontifex Maximus, Tribunicia Potestate Quinta Decima (Imperator, Caesar, Domitian, Augustus, conqueror of the Germans, high priest, holder of tribunician power for the 15th time); Reverse: Minerva advancing right, holding spear and shield. The Inscription reads: IMP XXII COS XVII CENS P P P for Imperator Secundum Vicesimum, Consul Septimum Decimum, Censor Perpetuus, Pater Patriae (Imperator for the 22nd time, consul for the 17th time, censor for life, father of the nation).

 

Klick here for showing the coin at my VCoins Shop and here at the MA-Shop

 

 

 

Titus Flavius Domitianus, as Imperator Caesar Domitianus Augustus

Denarius of the Roman Imperial Period 95/96 AD; Material: Silver; Diameter: 19mm; Weight: 3.27g; Mint: Rome; Reference: RIC II, Part 1 (second edition) Domitian 790; Obverse: Head of Domitian, laureate, right. The Inscription reads: IMP CAES DOMIT AVG GERM P M TR P XV for Imperator Caesar Domitianus Augustus Germanicus, Pontifex Maximus, Tribunicia Potestate Quinta Decima (Imperator, Caesar, Domitian, Augustus, conqueror of the Germans, high priest, holder of tribunician power for the 15th time); Reverse: Minerva standing left, holding spear. The Inscription reads: IMP XXII COS XVII CENS P P P for Imperator Secundum Vicesimum, Consul Septimum Decimum, Censor Perpetuus, Pater Patriae (Imperator for the 22nd time, consul for the 17th time, censor for life, father of the nation).

 

Klick here for showing the coin at my VCoins Shop and here at the MA-Shop

 

 

 

 

This is a bit off-topic but I hope you don't mind if I share this feedback here.

I noted that at some point a few months ago you began processing your Vcoins/Ma-Shops photos a bit differently and these Domitian examples above illustrate this new processing quite well. The processing, or at least I assume that it is processing that is being done in editing software rather than in-camera, seems to soften the details and texture of the photo substantially. I think this is often done by changing editing options called "clarity" or "texture" or similar (at least in Lightroom).

Personally, it makes it more difficult for me as a buyer to accurately assess the coin's details and surfaces as this "information" is degraded by the post-processing methods. When you post videos for your Vcoins/MA-Shops listings this isn't an issue as I can judge these qualities from the video alone but when there is no video, I'm apprehensive to purchase based on the photos alone due to the softness of the photo. While the editing that is now being done makes the coins "pop" really well in the small thumbnail images, when you open the full-sized image it's easy to see the softness introduced from the editing.

This is just my own subjective opinion though and wanted to share here in case anyone else has thought the same or if I'm alone in my preferences! You may have good reasons for editing photos this way, or perhaps you're not even editing them yourself (or it's being done automatically by some app etc), but in any case it's been on my mind for awhile and wanted to mention it in case you find this feedback useful 🙂

I've found one of your older photos to compare the difference I've noticed. These aren't the same coin but I think illustrate the change quite well:

Photo from one of your older sold listings:

Photo from one of your newer listings:

3 hours ago, John Conduitt said:

I don't know if you could count it as harshly if they didn't otherwise harm the surfaces.

Anyway, you could just do what @Restitutor did (by accident). Leave them in warm sunlight, in the open air so they get plenty of sulphur. Handling them will probably help.

Awhile ago I found a good article on the mechanisms of how sunlight (or visible light in general) affects the toning of silver coins:

https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/siteassets/home/learn/conservation/collections-advice--guidance/effects-of-light-on-silver-tarnishing.pdf

In summary, it seems that exposure to visible light can "bleach" patinas formed of silver chloride (e.g. horn silver) so as to become white and dull, while for patinas comprised of silver sulfide the opposite happens. Silver sulfide provides a protective layer to silver coins, meaning as the toning develops the rate of toning slows down due to the protective effect of the silver sulfide layer. However, in the presence of visible light, the researchers found this protection was essentially lost and the coin would tone at rates comparable to those found on "clean" silver coins.

I just gave the article another quick read-through to write that summary so I may have missed some important points or forgotten something else but it does seem to indicate that some silver coins can tone faster under visible light but it's not clear whether a clean silver coin will tone any faster. Since the mechanism appears to be through the passivating of the protective patina layer, the lack of patina would probably mean the coin is toning as fast as it can, whether it's in sunlight or not.

14 hours ago, savitale said:

Life has gotten in the way of my Roman Emperor collection for quite a while. But I did get this coin and after seeing it in hand I just had to share. It has the most beautiful, lustrous surfaces with iridescent toning. Of all the "common" Roman Emperors, I committed to stretch a bit for Nero because he is probably the most well-known. If you wanted to capture a non-collector's interest and could only show them one coin, it would probably be Nero. So here it is, with the description from NAC:

 

NAC Auction 138, May 18-19, 2023

Nero augustus, 54 – 68. Denarius circa 64-65, AR 3.51 g. NERO CAESAR – AVGVSTVS Laureate head r. Rev. IVPPITER – CVSTOS Jupiter seated l., holding thunderbolt and sceptre. C 119. BMC 74. RIC 53. CBN 220. A bold portrait of excellent style and a superb old cabinet tone. A minor area of weakness on reverse, otherwise virtually as struck and almost Fdc.

 

 

Love the Jupiter reverse, great style and well executed drapery.

The reason these all look the same to most of us on our different devices is because they horizontal resolution is the main limiting factor. The aspect ratio of the photos means they quickly max out the horizontal width of the page and prevent the photos from being too large vertically. It's the photos that are more of a square aspect ratio, or portrait style, that cause the biggest issues for some users as these photos can take up almost the entire vertical screen  space of someone's device. 

There's probably a way to limit the max vertical resolution of all images posted here to prevent them from taking up much screen space and this would in turn resize the image to a smaller size by keeping the aspect ratio fixed. 

Might bid in an FSR auction when his photos get better. No excuse to be using 400x200px images for your lot photos these days. I can only assume it's done to make coins look better than they are or hide their defects.

On 5/28/2023 at 6:18 AM, kapphnwn said:

Some weeks ago on May 11 2023 Roma Numismatics had their E Sale 109. What was particularly noteworthy about this sale was the number of coins struck during the lifetime of Alexander III of Macedon. I did not at the time think it would be right to comment on these coins at the time I had always planned to make some observations on some of the coins featured in this auction.  However it must be noted that NONE OF THESE ARE MY COINS.

All the coins are from Roma Numismatics E Sale 109 which was held on May 11 2023 All the pictures come from that auction as well

Ar Tetradrachm of Alexander III Tarsos Standard types Likely 333 BC Pellet.  Price 2990 17.27 grms 26mm Lot 268

 

Price list this coin as being the first of the issues listed for Tarsos. It certain appears to have preceded the A and B issues associated with Balakros. What is interesting about this coin as well is that the engraver of the obverse die appears to have stayed around for a number of years as one can see his handiwork on the great "plow" series of coins which started  possibly as late as 324 BC. 

I ended up winning this Tarsos one but bid on most, or all, of the ones you listed here. As in your case, I found the prices of many to be far too high so decided to settle for this one, albeit at a somewhat high price too.

Quite happy with it even though I already have this type with the same obverse die (should be Newell obv. die II, not III). It's rare to find these in such good condition so glad I was able to pick it up. I was also aiming for the Sidon tet for the same reason, as again I already have the type, but ended up as the underbidder.

1 hour ago, robinjojo said:

You could be right, but I find, despite the extensive corrosion, similarities between the first coin's obverse and the other two, but again it is problematic given the level of the first coin's deterioration.

Similarities in what sense? I assume the two cast fakes may be copied from genuine dies so if they're similar stylistically to the first example I don't think that's unusual. Though the first one is so deteriorated it's difficult to say whether it's stylistically normal or not.

The two cast ones also seem to have the same flan shape and centering, as you would expect of a cast, while the first one is different, indicating it's not of the same mold at the very least. 

I only focus on this because the first one is the only one with convincing surfaces, the other two are clearly cast. Even if their surfaces were treated with some acid afterwards to imitate corrosion, I don't think they would fool any of us so they're less of a concern. If the first one is actually a forgery, however, it would be much more worrying. 

I don't think the first coin is of the same die as the other two, is there anything else that makes you think it's fake?

For the other two, I suspect the corrosion is actually just copied over as part of the mould and casting process. I don't think the coin has been corroded after casting. That would differentiate these two from the first, which certainly has been corroded in some form. 

On 5/9/2023 at 4:05 PM, NewStyleKing said:

On another platform, the great provenance search is active. Whilst our Sulla 80 says, "For me it is primarily: a coin is more interesting if it can be documented from a famous collection or an important journal articles/book.  (Cited from: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/finding-provenance.403741/)

For me it's the coins, maybe Dominique de Chambrier and/or Richard Beale will add piquancy to a coin...I doubt NewStyleKing/eBay would ever cut it!

 

Surely a coin is more interesting for what it might not or might say or imply. In NewStyles the period around the time of Mithradates Vl's shenanigans around Cappadocia, Bithynia etc start to show ...it is believed... symbols that might relate to pro-Mithradatic or Roman partisanship. Coupled with the names of the first magistrate , ( who influenced the symbol's type), can re-inforce this view! Eg Aristion, known to have been an Athenian magistrate coupled with basileus Mithradates names on a NewStyle with a clear Pontic symbol! Apellikon, a thief of Teos, Athenian diplomat of the Pontic court, symbol Griffin , (badge of Teos!) and failed Stregos who tried to take Delos (?) from the Romans.....etc....Kointos=Greek for the Roman name Quintus on a symboled coin seeming to show Roma being crowned by Nike, with the previous obverse die-liked Newstyle being Roma on her own.... So it's not provenance that's worth a damn it's what the coins can show or imply...Eid Mar anyone? Maybe modern provenance is a distraction from the fact that most coins have nothing really to say! Just a long line of anonymous names....Aesillas, Quaestor! 

Going back to NSK's original point, it seems the issue is not whether provenance is of interest or value but two separate issues:

1. Whether a given coin is interesting numismatically
2. Whether a given collector has a numismatic interest in the coins they collect

What then follows from this is the assumption that people interested in provenance aren't collecting numismatically interesting coins and aren't interested in coins they collect numismatically. As others have already pointed out earlier, being interested in provenance is not mutually exclusive to the coin being interesting or the collector being interested in the coin for numismatic reasons.

So I think the viewpoint at the heart of this thread ("provenance is nothing of value") is really just an excuse to provide NSK with another opportunity for expressing his views on these two other points, which many of us are already well-acquainted with. This thread is then merely an opportunity for him to more easily sort each of us into one of his categories of "collector" or "owner", because if you're interested in provenance it can only be because the coin is boring or because you have no numismatic interest in it.

In NSK's mind, provenance is meaningless and valueless to a "true collector". It's just a form of gatekeeping, I wouldn't put too much thought into arguing the point with him.

18 minutes ago, DonnaML said:

It seems from the docket entry that nothing happened: the case was adjourned, and Beale's status as released on his own recognizance continues 

As it has that for the past hearings as well, does that mean there was likely nothing of substance submitted to the court in any of those? Or is it more that at this stage if anything happened like a plea deal, motion of some kind, or trial date was set we'd know about it?

Not sure how these things normally go but was the affidavit from Brent Easter something that was likely submitted during the first hearing/arraignment? If so, would we expect other documents to have been submitted yesterday even if it shows that the case was ultimately adjourned?

Next appearance June 26th. Wonder if we'll hear much about what happened during the hearing yesterday.

2 hours ago, John Conduitt said:

The human has to do all the research they were trying to avoid by using AI in the first place.

A human does but not necessarily the same human who is giving the prompt. Parts of the reinforcement learning process are probably outsourced to people whose sole job it is to assess the output of such models. The difference is that you can have a handful of people improve the model so it is more accurate for the millions of people that use it. The actual end-user who needs the answer and does not know it will need to trust that ChatGPT is giving them the correct answer but eventually these models will get to a point where they have a high degree of accuracy. Then the ratio between those adding to the reinforcement learning loop and those getting accurate answers without needing to do any follow-up research will grow smaller and smaller at a fairly rapid rate.

Of course you still have the same issues with labelling by humans (i.e. many types of biases) but that's another story.

A fellow collector alerted me to this very interesting example in their collection: https://www.numisbids.com/n.php?p=lot&sid=2766&lot=60

It appears to be an example from Arados, which would make it the only example with a left-facing Herakles I've seen that is not attributable to either Pella or Cyrene. The clues that suggest it is likely from Arados are several-fold: the AP monogram below the throne, the style of the Herakles portrait, and the style of the Zeus reverse with the crown. Zeus with the crown portrayed in this fashion can be found at a few mints in Asia Minor and the Levant at around this time (e.g. Tarsos) but in combination with the other similarities it points towards Arados as being the most likely origin.

Additionally, it seems to be closest to the earliest types of this mint, namely Price 3303-3305 (Duyrat Group I to Group III Series 2). If this is the case, then it would also make this left-facing example likely to be the earliest minted as the types from Pella and Cyrene are much more likely to be posthumous. The dating of Price 3303-3305 is still finnicky but I think a date between 330-326 BC is most likely.

Will add it as an addendum to my article at some point so all the information is in one place.

1 hour ago, kapphnwn said:

Very interesting and very well thought out. I agree with your reservations on the placement of mints. I have to deal with that as well and the problem is extremely  vexing. Great work I love it. 

Thanks, glad you enjoyed it! On the one hand it's nice that not everything is known about Alexander's coinage and there's still room to discover something new or re-interpret a previous finding but as you know things quickly spiral once you start having to rely on the attribution of other types being correct. Then once you start looking into those types, you realise they're on similarly shaky ground and have to go through the process again of trying to substantiate that attribution to support another attribution.

Or even when someone else has updated that attribution (relative to Price), you have to remember who it was and in which article they published it - as well as whether they're likely correct. I find it quite tough to recall all the post-Price findings from Troxell, Le Rider, Houghton, Lorber, Taylor etc - and they only have written on a fraction of the types that likely needed some modification to the attribution or dating.

A shame Price isn't around to publish a 2nd edition of his work. Though it would probably be better to use ANS's PELLA database as a "living" version of his work and have some system (e.g. editors) for approving modifications.

I've just finished another mammoth article for my website, this time focussing on the rare Alexander-type left-facing Herakles tetradrachms. I was very lucky to pick up one of these recently from a Roma auction, I honestly would never have thought I'd be able to get one of these in the next few years. That spurred me to dig into these rare types and learn a bit more about why they were minted, where they were minted, and when. In total, I discovered 63 other examples of this type - still rare but not as rare as one might think.

Not a whole lot is really known about them but my article goes into about every detail that I can find. It's quite lengthy, too lengthy to post here, so if you're interested please check it out on my site: https://artemis-collection.com/alexander-left-facing-herakles-tetradrachms/

A desktop/laptop/tablet is recommended since the tables will be difficult to read on mobile.

11 hours ago, Ryro said:

ps, the article said nothing about the auction house thinking it was a 19th century copy. Merely that it was purchased in the 19th century and that the house underestimated what two idiots would bid. Anyone able to find the original sale listing?

I noticed that too but managed to find the original listing and it was listed as being a 19th century copy. I'd link to it but you actually need to register and apply for a 1-week free subscription to access their lot archives even though the auction was last week 🙃

Did some expert come out and say it's likely authentic or is the assumption it's authentic based only on two bidders willing to pay so much for it?

17 hours ago, Alegandron said:

ALEXANDER III MAKEDONWN LIFETIME - Tetradrachm



BABALONIA, Babylon
Alexander III Lifetime
AR Tetradrachm / Stater (or Dishekel)
Minted ca. 323-328 B.C.
24 mm, 16.3g
Obv: Ba’al seated left holding scepter
Rev: Lion walking left, control mark Г above.
(Control mark Г was minted during Alexander III Lifetime)
Ref: Ref: BMC Arabia XXII no.1
Comment: "This type was discussed by Martin Price in his article "Circulation at Babylon in 323 BC," in the book "Mnemata: Papers in Memory of Nancy M. Waggoner." He asserts that a reengraved die clearly shows the "lion staters" with gamma followed the ones with delta. "They are probably shekels on the local standard." (page 67). He dates them to the lifetime of Alexander, because they were present in a hoard with deposition dated to 323/2. He doesn't give the earliest possible date explicitly, but mentions that Mazaeus was governor until 328 and issued coins, so I infer Price would put them at or after 328. So you can say "Struck 323 or before, under Alexander the Great." Quoted from @Valentinian
Ex: @Ancientnoob

As a side-note, I've been looking into these types a lot over the past few months (I even catalogued your example here as I think you posted it on CoinTalk previously) and there are a lot of unknowns and issues with the current attributions and dates. There's yet to be a die study or even a comprehensive overview of all the types. Nicolet-Pierre comes close but misses a bunch, Price only focusses on those in the Iraq 1973 hoard, Iossif & Lorber only focus on their Commerce 2003 hoard, and Mitchiner misses a tonne as well and mostly just plates them.

I know Iossif & Lorber have cast doubt on Price's dating from "Mnemata", mainly due to concerns that the hoard he studied was not intact and may have been compromised by additions of other coins that weren't found with the hoard. I haven't yet decided fully on where I would date these myself, there's not a lot of evidence to firm up the dates besides the other coinage minted at Babylon and the dates for those coins are still being changed or debated all the time.

My best guess at the moment would be a date somewhere between 324-317 BC. Partly because the crossed legs of Baal on the obverse would point to a post-326 BC date if we are to assume the Zeus of the Alexander tetradrachms followed, or led, the Balakros staters from Tarsos in crossing of Baal's legs on those types. It is unlikely this characteristic originated in Babylon given the best evidence we have suggests that Babylon didn't start minting Alexandrine tetradrachms until about the first cross-legged types started appearing in the Levant. When crossed-legged Zeus did appear at Babylon, it wasn't until Babylon Group III near the beginning of Philip III's regency.

The other bit of evidence I would point to is the following type, Nicolet-Pierre 8, which has the same gamma-reverse but with different control symbols on the obverse. This type surely followed Nicolet-Pierre 7 (your type) and the interesting thing about N-P 8 is that nearly all of the obverse control symbols parallel those found on Babylon Group II to Group IV tetradrachms. Group II is currently dated to 325-323 BC but there are some who would downdate it further to starting in 323 BC or so. The following type, Nicolet-Pierre 9, also parallels some of the controls found on Group III tetradrachms struck under Philip III between 323-317 BC.

So based on that, and the types that need to fit in the sequence before this gamma-type, I would err on the side of it being a late-lifetime early-posthumous type.

4 hours ago, Ursus said:

Thanks for all your answers and votes!

The background of my post was as follows: I own a couple of pre-digital M42 screw mount lenses. With the help of an adapter, I mainly use them on an D-SLR camera body (Canon EOS Rebel T6s). Especially when it comes to landscape or portrait photography, they often produce aesthetically pleasing results and in some cases beat my "modern" Canon lenses.

In the pictures in the original post, I juxtaposed pictures taken with a vintage 1970s lens and a modern lens. Lighting conditions (natural dalight from nearby window) were the same, and the abovementioned camera body was mounted on a simple tripod. I used a 13mm macro tube adapter on both lenses. In order to not distort the results, I posted as the pictures as they came from the camera and did not do digital alterations apart form cropping.

Here are the details for those interested:

#1: Pentax Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 55mm f/1.8 (built 1971–1975, often cited as a good vintage lens for digital photography). Shot in AV mode at ISO 400: f/16, 1/250 s. Manual focus.

#2: Canon EFS 18–135mm f/3.5–5.6 IS USM (one of Canon's current upper mid-range lenses). Shot in AV mode at ISO 400: f/18, 0.30 s. Autofocus and stabilizer turned on.

In my eyes, the modern lens clearly won in comparison, and the poll confirms this.

Still, I am somewhat impressed how well the vintage Takumar performed, especially when it comes to contrast, highlights and color (though these points could be addressed using photo software). Some of the flaws of the first picture have more to do with me than with the lens. For example, I found it hard to get the coin fully into focus. Yet other points, for example poor depth of field at maximum aperture and the blurred edges, are probably not just my fault.

Also keep in mind that both lenses were not really made for macro potography. The modern lens, at least in my eyes, still produces good enough results when using a macro adapter. With the vintage lens, edge sharpness and manual focus become difficult. I guess the lesson from this experiment is that vintage lenses, albeit interesting for other types of digital photography, don't work comparaply well for coin pictures.

I would be interested to see how a good pre-digital macro lens performs in comparison to a modern lens. Yet, I don't have one and probably won't buy one just to find out...

You should have another go with the Takumar and maybe take multiple photos to ensure you get the coin in focus properly in one of them. Until then I wouldn't draw too many conclusions between the lenses as pre-digital lenses can be amazing, and even out-perform digital-era lenses, but you do need to test them in more controlled conditions to make sure the comparisons are equal.

For example, old "enlarger lenses" from the 70s and 80s are very popular with macro photographers because while they're often cheap and easy to find secondhand, the image quality from them can also be stellar. Robert from closeuphotography.com probably does the best lens tests on the internet when it comes to "alternative" lenses such as enlarger or scanning lenses.

Did you shoot the Canon at the same focal length? I note that the camera settings for exposure are a bit different between the two, f/16 and 1/250s for the Takumar but f/18 and 1/3s for the Canon. It seems like the Canon was shot with much less light and the extra stop probably doesn't account for that.

For a comparison, I shot the below coin 4 years ago on a Sony A6000 with a Rodenstock Apo Componon HM 6.7/60 that I bought for $100 or so on eBay. If I recall correctly, it's not an enlarger lens but a line-scanning lens, and probably manufactured in the 90s or early 2000s. The image is focus stacked. I have a bunch of these kinds of lenses lying around but I never use them anymore even though they could match up to my dedicated macro lens in some circumstances.

I think there's quite a difference in the quality between the two photos, so while you might be asking more about the aesthetic preference, I would choose the bottom photo first and foremost because it's a much higher quality image.

For instance, the top photo isn't sharp anywhere on the coin as far as I can see. I also get the impression that the depth of field is smaller as the edges are very out of focus, compared to only slightly out of focus in the bottom image. The top photo also has a lot of chromatic aberrations, which is causing the purple fringing you can see quite noticeably around parts of the portrait (and some green fringing on the edges).

In terms of the aesthetics, I think the warm light used in the top photo is quite distracting as you can see it reflect off of different parts of the portrait. For example, the highlights around the hair are very yellow while the highlights on the front of the face like the nose and chin are white. You can still see the yellow in the bottom image but it's less noticeable.

Because the bottom image is much sharper and in-focus, the surfaces seem quite harsh compared to the top photo. This might be a combination of the angle of the light you're using as well as how strong the light is. You might find diffusing the light with some baking paper or even a thin white piece of material (e.g. an old sheet, some paper towels, etc) may help reduce the harshness of the surfaces and better hide the tiny hairline scratches which are currently capturing bright specular reflections and drawing the eye's attention to them.

So my preference is to stick with the method you used for the bottom photo but play around a bit more with the light to see if you can soften it a touch. You may find that you need two lights: one to provide the main illumination, the second to produce some light shadows or illuminate a specific area of the coin better.

I think this is sufficiently closely related to "die sharing", though perhaps less formal than in the case you mention.

It's known that some engravers of Alexandrine tetradrachms either travelled to other mints to engrave dies or sent their dies to other mints for use. There's two examples of this between Sidon and Tyre from some of the very first Alexander tetradrachms ever struck, circa 333/2 BC.

For this first tetradrachm from Sidon, the engraver of this obverse die (Newell 'Sidon' obv. die I) also engraved a second obverse die (not known to Newell) that was then used at Tyre to strike the first Alexandrine tetradrachm type at that mint.

At the same time, it appears this obverse die (Newell 'Ake' obv die II) was also transferred from Sidon to Tyre, along with its engraver, to strike coins of the first type at Tyre. This obverse die was only used for a brief period in Sidon before travelling with its engraver to Tyre, where the engraver then produced a further four obverse dies. Following this, it appears the engraver moved to Tarsos and then finally Arados, according to a paper by Lloyd Taylor on the Sidon and Tyre mints.

44 minutes ago, kapphnwn said:

 I have been silent for a rather long time on this subject. The main reason was that I was waiting on some books that might clarify some issues that I was having especially dealing with the drachm issues of Asia Minor. Well the books finally came and I began the process of digesting the contents. These new sources created as many problems as I had hoped they would solve. However, it became clear to me that I needed to broaden my approach to some degree. Andrew Meadows in his article "Invasion and Transformation The Development of the Civic Alexander Coinage in Western Asia Minor c. 323to 223 BC" suggests that it is not the silver drachms that we should be concentrating on, but the gold. Like most I have been concentrating on the drachm coinage and so I need to reassess my thinking. This is the book where the article can be found.

  Before I begin I should make some observations. The first is that the mints I am going to investigate are (in no particular order Sardes Miletos, Lampsakos and Abydos These are generally considered to have issued drachms during Alexander's lifetime. However, it must be noted that  in some cases the attribution to some of these mints are questionable. Price places a question mark behind his listings of the coins of Abydos?.  I know that there has been a great deal of reassessment of the mints in the Levant. 

  Another question is the why? That I will leave for now. Hopefully when I get through the four mints noted above, I will try to offer some conclusions on that subject.  The first mint I will attempt to discuss is the mint of Sardes.  This city was the capital of the Persian Satrapy of Lydia. It is the general  consensus that Sardes is where the  Royal Persian coinage consisting of the Gold Daric (struck at a weight standard of 8.35 grms ) and the silver siglos (struck at a weight standard of 5.35 grms) was struck . However as ubiquitous as this coinage is, there has not been a lot of study on it. Thus we cannot know if this coinage was minted on an annual basis, or if it was struck intermittently in answer to particular political crises.  

Persian Av Daric 375-336 BC 15 mm 8.33 grms Triton XXI Lot 529 January 8 2018 NONE OF THESE ARE MY COINS

Persian Ar Siglos 375-340 BC 13 mm 5.48 grms Triton XXIII Lot 508 January 14 2020

 Alexander takes the city in 334 BC and presses on in his efforts to come to grips with the Persian forces opposing him. As the coinage struck in his name is concentrated in the Levant, it would seem unlikely that there was any effort in Asia Minor until sometime in circa 325 BC. As I was concentrating on the drachm coinage I failed to recognize that the gold coinage could have been part of Alexander's efforts to pay off his army once he returned to Babylon.  The mint of Sardes struck some 6 issues of gold slaters the first? one being this issue. 

Alexander III Av Stater Sardes Mint c 325-323 BC Price 2528 symbol rams head 8.58 grms 18 mm Triton XIII Lot 103 January 4 2010 

The initial issues of gold staters were not stuck with accompanying minor denominations . The first one to do so is this series.

Alexander III Av Stater Sardes Mint c 325-323 BC  Price 2533 symbol griffin head 8.54 grms 17 mm  Triton XVIII Lot 460 January 5 2015

This is the drachm issue accompanying the stater. This coin does exhibit the severe parallel legs on the image of Zeus seen on the reverse. Another feature is that the god's feet are resting on a footstool a feature seen on many of the Levantine mints indicating that the prototype probably came from that region

Alexander III Ar Drachm Sardes Mint 325-323 BC Price 2536 symbol griffin head 4.28 grms 15.5 mm CNG E Auction 417 Lot 59 March 28 2018

There is another drachm which is not  associated with any gold issue. 

Alexander III Ar Drachm Sardes Mint 325-323 BC Price 2542 symbol kantharos 4.26 grms 15 mm CNG E Auction 459 Lot 93 January 8 2020

The kantharos is associated with gold issues from the mint of Amphipolis. It is not normally associated with a silver issue at this time. Both this and the Price 2536 drachm were scarce when M. Thompson looked at the coinage of Sardes back in 1983. She had only noted one die for each series.  A hoard which is being dispersed over the last few years has brought to light additional specimens,. This is not the case for the next issue, 

Alexander III Ar Drachm Sardes Mint circa 322 BC Price 2550 EY monogram 4.30 grms 16 mm CNG E Auction 462 Lot 40 February 26 2020

This issue is associated with both gold staters and silver tetradrachms However I was not able to find suitable example on line. As can be seen that the position of the legs have changed to that of the fore leg reverted with footstool. This is a feature associated with posthumous issues of Alexander. She also noted some 18 dies for this series which is rather more substantial than the drachm issues that preceded it. 

Hopefully in the next few weeks I will tackle the other three mints. 

 

 

I just picked up that book the other week as well, though still waiting on delivery. Did you find any other particularly useful books from the others you read, or was that one the best of the bunch?

I find the unpublished PhD dissertations the most annoying to track down. While I'm at it, you wouldn't happen to have a copy of Nancy Moore's "The Lifetime and Early Posthumous Coinage of Alexander the Great from Pella" thesis or know where I can find one, would you?

Looking forward to reading your next instalment on the topic!

Love seeing some Alexanders! I really must get one of those oinochoe types some day, there are some great dies from that series. So far I've been deprioritising these later lifetime types but eventually I'll get around to buying more of them.

In the meantime, here's one I do own, which is easily the largest of all my Alexander tetradrachms, next to my smallest Alexander tetradrachm. They're also representing the biggest difference in minting date too, the small one from 332 BC and the large one from approximately 200-190 BC.