Jump to content

Egypt Tetradrachm of Gallienus - Nike walking right dated LIE - I need help


Marsyas Mike
 Share

Recommended Posts

This Roman Provincial Egyptian tetradrachm of Gallienus has been in my collection for a few years with a sketchy "BMC 2195" attribution that came I know not where.  Recently I decided to check on this and see if I could get any other references...

But I'm stumped!  I can't find another one of these anywhere, acsearch, Wildwinds, MANTIS, etc.: Nike advancing right, LIE date in left field.  Here it is (8.18 grams / 22 mm): 

1265040407_Egypt-GallienustetNikewalkingrightLIE-MINENov2018.jpg.43d60dfcedaa21b57cd3216d65d56213.jpg

I consulted Dattari online - I don't read Italian, so I'm having some difficulty here.  The section on Gallienus Nike tetradrachms is here (at least I think this is all of it - online book browsing is not one of my talents):

1242009149_Egypt-GallienustetNikewalkingrightLIE-Dattaribookexc2..jpg.38343b97dc55e040d6b5afecf1627c14.jpg

At first I thought it was No. 5257, but I think the "s" stands for left here (sinister left and dexter right, or something like that?), and the LI E is split across the fields.  CNG auctioned a Dattari 5257, which looks like this - Nike advancing left, LIE date split across fields:

1562194025_Egypt-GallienustetNikewalkingleftLI-E-auct2Dattari5257pic.jpg.6d6804860a6ce7b1792ae28f2996c51b.jpg

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3294032

That CNG is the closest I could find - Nike walking left, split date in fields.  Other than that, I found either wrong dates or facing Nike with shield; Nike walking right with LID date in right field is fairly common, so maybe mine is like that but a different (unlisted?) date in the right field.  Here is one from FORVM:

1953336545_Egypt-GallienustetNikewalkingrightLI-FORVMpic.jpg.199a217bac8120ad4daa60bbe7b076b6.jpg

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greek-coins.asp?zpg=27605

Any help with this much appreciated.  Feel free to toss some Gallienus tets in if you want; I like looking at them.  

 

 

 

 

  • Like 7
  • Heart Eyes 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KenDorney said:

Most catalogs don't discuss the exact placement of the date, so I think you will be fine with general reference numbers.  

Thanks @KenDorney - that's what I will probably do, keep it general.  I'm not very picky about such things, but I was kind of surprised I couldn't find any other examples.  Most of my late-Roman tets have many, many examples.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Benefactor
1 hour ago, Marsyas Mike said:

Thanks @KenDorney - that's what I will probably do, keep it general.  I'm not very picky about such things, but I was kind of surprised I couldn't find any other examples.  Most of my late-Roman tets have many, many examples.  

It's funny how some things are often completely ignored in the literature.  Take for example the coinage of Alexander.  Zeus is seen seated in the usual manner but in two ways, with his feet on a stool or not.  Two very different types but the footstool is almost never mentioned anywhere!  Even Price in his exhaustive work only gives it a passing comment in the introduction, but its not in the catalog in any way.  Odd to say the least but it shows that some are interested in certain aspects but others find no interest.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Benefactor

@Marsyas Mike, Milne and BMC 16 Alexandria (plus supplement) both show the exact placement of dates across the fields. (Milne in particular is known for its exhaustive cataloging of minor differences of all kinds.) But neither lists a Gallienus Year 15 with Nike advancing right, regardless of date placement. Only a year 14. The only Nike advancing listed for Year 15 has her advancing left. Also, all the years with Nike advancing right have the year in the right field, not the left field. 

The type is also unlisted for Year 15 in Emmett, K&G, and Curtis (1969)*. I don't have a copy of Geissen (Cologne), among other well-known catalogs.  

So you may have an unpublished and perhaps unique type, assuming authenticity. 

*As No. 1608, Curtis does list a "Nike flying (l., or r., holds palm over shoulder & wreath) (years 10 & 15)" (emphasis added) -- I'm not sure what Nike flying as opposed to advancing looks like, since there's no accompanying illustration. Curtis cites BMC 2195 & Milne 4078, but neither of those is a Yr 15 with Nike flying right. In any event, your coin appears to show Nike firmly grounded to the base line.

Edited by DonnaML
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Clap 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, DonnaML said:

@Marsyas Mike, Milne and BMC 16 Alexandria (plus supplement) both show the exact placement of dates across the fields. (Milne in particular is known for its exhaustive cataloging of minor differences of all kinds.) But neither lists a Gallienus Year 15 with Nike advancing right, regardless of date placement. Only a year 14. The only Nike advancing listed for Year 15 has her advancing left. Also, all the years with Nike advancing right have the year in the right field, not the left field. 

The type is also unlisted for Year 15 in Emmett, K&G, and Curtis (1969)*. I don't have a copy of Geissen (Cologne), among other well-known catalogs.  

So you may have an unpublished and perhaps unique type, assuming authenticity. 

*As No. 1608, Curtis does list a "Nike flying (l., or r., holds palm over shoulder & wreath) (years 10 & 15)" (emphasis added) -- I'm not sure what Nike flying as opposed to advancing looks like, since there's no accompanying illustration. Curtis cites BMC 2195 & Milne 4078, but neither of those is a Yr 15 with Nike flying right. In any event, your coin appears to show Nike firmly grounded to the base line.

Donna, thank you so much for your thorough efforts to track this coin down - I do appreciate it.  Your excellent reference library seems to confirm what my slogging through acsearch and the World Wide Web in general indicates - an unpublished, perhaps unique type. 

Your comment "assuming authenticity" is pertinent - as with most of my ancients, this came from eBay, from a seller I'd never heard of.  The general feel and fabric and look of it looks okay to me, and I'm not sure why a counterfeiter would bother coming up with a brand new type, strike it, then low-ball it on eBay.  But as we all know, eBay abounds with fakes and some of them are quite deceptive.  And I've never understood the criminal mind!

Anyway, thanks again -  😊

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Benefactor
22 hours ago, DonnaML said:

Milne and BMC 16 Alexandria (plus supplement) both show the exact placement of dates across the fields.

Milne is a great book, and one that I dont use so much anymore but maybe should.  Problem with it is that the date position is not always spelled out, but like this one, "i. f. LI E", which I take to mean 'in field' but where?  Perhaps the default position is left considering our western way of doing things but who can say.  Also, Milne does have a Year 15 with Nike but advancing left rather than right (#4183).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...