Bought this EL Trite from CNG Numismatic Review

[panzerman]

It only took me a split second to press the "buy" button. This mint state ex. was listed at $2950US/ a deal for this rare coin.

Ionia/ uncertain City State

EL Trite/ 1/3 Stater ND (Struck circa 650-625 BC)

Lydo-Milesian Standard 4.67g.   13.5 mm.     .425

obv: Plain Globular surface with unlegiable script around edge

rev: Two Incuse Rectangles with Geometrc Patterns

TRaité I-11   SNG Kaylan 773 var. (this coin)   SNG von Aulock 7762 var. (this coin)

Please post your old EL coinage😉

 

[DonnaML]

14 minutes ago, panzerman said:

It only took me a split second to press the "buy" button. This mint state ex. was listed at $2950US/ a deal for this rare coin.

Ionia/ uncertain City State

EL Trite/ 1/3 Stater ND (Struck circa 650-625 BC)

Lydo-Milesian Standard 4.67g.   13.5 mm.     .425

obv: Plain Globular surface with unlegiable script around edge

rev: Two Incuse Rectangles with Geometrc Patterns

TRaité I-11   SNG Kaylan 773 var. (this coin)   SNG von Aulock 7762 var. (this coin)

Please post your old EL coinage😉

 

I'm glad you found a good buy in the CNG retail catalog. I scrolled through the offerings online, and -- as usual -- was astonished at the high prices, at least for Roman coins.

[sand]

6 hours ago, panzerman said:

It only took me a split second to press the "buy" button. This mint state ex. was listed at $2950US/ a deal for this rare coin.

Ionia/ uncertain City State

EL Trite/ 1/3 Stater ND (Struck circa 650-625 BC)

Lydo-Milesian Standard 4.67g.   13.5 mm.     .425

obv: Plain Globular surface with unlegiable script around edge

rev: Two Incuse Rectangles with Geometrc Patterns

TRaité I-11   SNG Kaylan 773 var. (this coin)   SNG von Aulock 7762 var. (this coin)

Please post your old EL coinage😉

 

@panzerman Congratulations on your new acquisition. It's a very old coin (one of the oldest), and a very important coin, and a very interesting coin, and a nice looking example, and a very large denomination. I'm not familiar with the market value of the large denominations, but I know that, the larger the denomination, the higher the market value of the coin.
The CNG listing, is confusing to me. The CNG listing says, that the coin for sale, is "SNG Kayhan 673 var. (same)". The word "same" is confusing to me. Like you, I thought that "same" perhaps meant, that the coin for sale, is an SNG Kayhan plate coin. However, the coin for sale, does not seem to be the plate coin SNG Kayhan 673, and there does not seem to be a photo of the coin for sale, in the 2 SNG Kayhan books. The coin for sale seems to be of the type SNG Kayhan 673, but the coin for sale does not seem to be the same coin as the SNG Kayhan 673 plate coin.
I don't have the other 2 books, for which the CNG listing mentions the coin for sale as "same", such as "Traité I 11 var. (same)" or "SNG von Aulock 7762 var. (same)". Therefore, I can't check to see, if your coin is a plate coin, in either of those 2 books.
Perhaps someone could enlighten me, regarding the meaning of the word "same", in the context of the CNG listing. Did CNG make a mistake?
Here are screen shots of the CNG listing, and the CNG listing photos, and photos of the SNG Kayhan 673 plate coin, from my SNG Kayhan books.

Edited August 11, 2023 by sand

[sand]

P.S. : Here's my ancient Greek electrum plain coin, of a much smaller denomination. The earliest known hoard of ancient Greek coins, the "Artemision hoard", contained coins of this type, as well as other coin types. The Artemision hoard was found at the site of the ancient Temple Of Artemis, in the ancient Greek city of Ephesus, in what is now western Turkey. It's interesting to me, that this coin was minted, when the 1st Temple in Jerusalem, which was said to contain the Ark Of The Covenant, still existed. The 1st Temple in Jerusalem was said to have been destroyed in 587 BC.

 

Ionia EL 1/24 Stater. Minted 650 BC To 600 BC. Uncertain Mint. SNG Kayhan 678. Hogarth 6. Maximum Diameter 6.0 mm. Weight 0.59 grams. Obverse : Plain. Reverse : Square Incuse Punch.

Edited August 11, 2023 by sand

[hotwheelsearl]

I think the most expensive coin I ever clicked "buy it now" on was $15

[NewStyleKing]

I guess the illegible script  is not a script eh?  When is a pattern a script other than when it's recognisable.  What do the legible scripts on other examples say? This is not a badge of Phanes! Illumination required please.

[panzerman]

59 minutes ago, NewStyleKing said:

I guess the illegible script  is not a script eh?  When is a pattern a script other than when it's recognisable.  What do the legible scripts on other examples say? This is not a badge of Phanes! Illumination required please.

Hopefully one day these early electrum coins will be properly identified/ city state/ mint/ ruler etc.

John

[panzerman]

5 hours ago, sand said:

P.S. : Here's my ancient Greek electrum plain coin, of a much smaller denomination. The earliest known hoard of ancient Greek coins, the "Artemision hoard", contained coins of this type, as well as other coin types. The Artemision hoard was found at the site of the ancient Temple Of Artemis, in the ancient Greek city of Ephesus, in what is now western Turkey. It's interesting to me, that this coin was minted, when the 1st Temple in Jerusalem, which was said to contain the Ark Of The Covenant, still existed. The 1st Temple in Jerusalem was said to have been destroyed in 587 BC.

 

Ionia EL 1/24 Stater. Minted 650 BC To 600 BC. Uncertain Mint. SNG Kayhan 678. Hogarth 6. Maximum Diameter 6.0 mm. Weight 0.59 grams. Obverse : Plain. Reverse : Square Incuse Punch.

Your coin has high gold content! Very nice....

[panzerman]

9 hours ago, DonnaML said:

I'm glad you found a good buy in the CNG retail catalog. I scrolled through the offerings online, and -- as usual -- was astonished at the high prices, at least for Roman coins.

You are right on Donna/ most coins on these lists are very $$$$/ sometimes there are good deals. I recently got a coin off Nomos list that was perfect quality and way cheaper then auction prices. Even though I have been working 95+ hrs a week since May/ I still leave 1 hr (10:00-11:00PM) for coins/ sixbid/ stuff. Days are getting shorter now/ more time for hobbies☺️

John

[Edessa]

7 hours ago, sand said:

SNG Kayhan 673 var. (same).

My understanding is that this means it is the same variation of SNG Kayhan 673, not the same coin.

The confusing thing - to me - is that all the major auction houses list this coin with incuse rectangles "with irregular surfaces" as SNG Kayhan 673 and SNG von Aulock 7762. My assumption is that CNG is apparently using "variation" to indicate that the geometric pattern exists on this coin. 

However, the picture you have shown of SNG Kayhan 673 clearly shows the geometric pattern, not an irregular surface.

I don't have the books and can't check myself, but all I can see is confusion.

[sand]

@panzerman Here's the Biddr listing for a previous auction of your coin, auction Numismatik Naumann 97 (6 December 2020) Lot 134, and the auction photos. These Naumann auction photos are somewhat larger than the CNG photos, and one can see more details of the coin. Below the Naumann auction listing photos, I've again included photos of the SNG Kayhan 673 plate coin, which again seem to show, that they are not the same coin.

Edited August 11, 2023 by sand

[sand]

2 hours ago, Edessa said:

My understanding is that this means it is the same variation of SNG Kayhan 673, not the same coin.

The confusing thing - to me - is that all the major auction houses list this coin with incuse rectangles "with irregular surfaces" as SNG Kayhan 673 and SNG von Aulock 7762. My assumption is that CNG is apparently using "variation" to indicate that the geometric pattern exists on this coin. 

However, the picture you have shown of SNG Kayhan 673 clearly shows the geometric pattern, not an irregular surface.

I don't have the books and can't check myself, but all I can see is confusion.

@Edessa I agree, that when CNG said "SNG Kayhan 673 var. (same)", perhaps CNG was trying to say, that @panzerman's coin is a variation of SNG Kayhan 673. I don't know why CNG used the word "same". I would have omitted the word "same", because it seems meaningless in this context, and it seems confusing in this context. I also agree, that I don't know why CNG calls @panzerman's coin a "variation" of SNG Kayhan 673, because @panzerman's coin seems to be the same type as SNG Kayhan 673, because both coins seem to have "geometric" patterns within at least 1 of the incuse punches. The only variation that I see, is that, within the incuse punches, the lines seem to be pointing in different directions, and maybe there is a different pattern of dots. Here's a photo of the SNG Kayhan 673 description, in the SNG Kayhan book. Note that the weight of the SNG Kayhan 673 plate coin, is very close to the weight of @panzerman's coin (4.66 versus 4.67), even though the coins don't seem to be the same coin.

Edited August 11, 2023 by sand

[filolif]

They're talking about same dies, not same coin. I don't think its confusing. If it was the same coin they would say "this coin". That is usually how I see it phrased.

It's possible they also mean same type but it's definitely same type or same dies (usually same dies). Whether or not they are actually the same dies, I'll leave it up to others to determine.

Edited August 11, 2023 by filolif

[AncientJoe]

3 hours ago, filolif said:

They're talking about same dies, not same coin. I don't think its confusing. If it was the same coin they would say "this coin". That is usually how I see it phrased.

It's possible they also mean same type but it's definitely same type or same dies (usually same dies). Whether or not they are actually the same dies, I'll leave it up to others to determine.

Indeed: the CNG description is accurate but the original post text above from panzerman changes it to "this coin". @panzerman, was that copied/pasted from somewhere else? I can't find an auction which references those catalog numbers and "this coin" in CoinArchives.

[Glebe]

This is Linzalone's "Ram from above" type Ln 1110 - see here (Ionia N):

https://www.glebecoins.org/electrum/Early_Electrum/Basic_Electrum_Types/basic_electrum_types.html

Note the difference between Ionia A and Ionia N types.

Ross G.

Edited August 11, 2023 by Glebe

[sand]

6 hours ago, Glebe said:

This is Linzalone's "Ram from above" type Ln 1110 - see here (Ionia N):

https://www.glebecoins.org/electrum/Early_Electrum/Basic_Electrum_Types/basic_electrum_types.html

Note the difference between Ionia A and Ionia N types.

Ross G.

Interesting. The SNG Kayhan 673 photo is rather small and therefore low resolution, but I see a rough horizontal line on the obverse, and a curly "horn" feature below the right end of the rough horizontal line on the obverse, which resemble the horizontal line and horns on Linzalone 1110. Even though the SNG Kayhan 673 description describes the obverse as having a "smooth surface" (see my previous post above). Perhaps this is why CNG described @panzerman's coin as a "variation" of SNG Kayhan 673. The SNG Kayhan 673 plate coin, has a rough horizontal line and a "horn" on the obverse, but @panzerman's coin does not. Here are the Linzalone 1110 plate coin description and photos, followed by the SNG Kayhan 673 plate coin photos, which show the resemblance between Linzalone 1110 and SNG Kayhan 673.

13 hours ago, filolif said:

They're talking about same dies, not same coin. I don't think its confusing. If it was the same coin they would say "this coin". That is usually how I see it phrased.

It's possible they also mean same type but it's definitely same type or same dies (usually same dies). Whether or not they are actually the same dies, I'll leave it up to others to determine.

I agree, that if a coin is a plate coin, then it is usually described as "this coin" in the attribution.

However, if the convention, is that "same" means "same die" or "die match", then that seems like a confusing convention. I would simply say "same die" or "die match", rather than "same". But if "same" is the convention, then so be it.

On the other hand, if the convention, is that "same" means "same type", then that seems redundant. If I look at a coin's attribution, and if I see "SNG Kayhan 673", then I interpret that to mean, that the coin is the same type as SNG Kayhan 673. Adding "same" (to mean "same type") to the attribution, seems redundant.

9 hours ago, AncientJoe said:

Indeed: the CNG description is accurate but the original post text above from panzerman changes it to "this coin". @panzerman, was that copied/pasted from somewhere else? I can't find an auction which references those catalog numbers and "this coin" in CoinArchives.

@AncientJoe Yes, @panzerman used the phrase "this coin", rather than the CNG description which said "same", probably because @panzerman probably thought that's what "same" meant. What I'm wondering is, when the CNG description says "SNG Kayhan 673 var. (same)", what does the word "same" mean, in this context?

Edited August 12, 2023 by sand

[Qcumbor]

Great coin @panzerman

However I think one has to have in mind a clear distinction between "this coin" (that very coin), "same dies" (die match) and "same type" (same reference), the latter seeming to be the case here

Q

[sand]

49 minutes ago, Qcumbor said:

Great coin @panzerman

However I think one has to have in mind a clear distinction between "this coin" (that very coin), "same dies" (die match) and "same type" (same reference), the latter seeming to be the case here

Q

I think that, when @panzerman saw the CNG description "SNG Kayhan 673 var. (same)", probably @panzerman thought "same" meant "this coin". For myself, I don't know, what "same" means, in the CNG description.

[akeady]

To explain the (same), the CNG attribution is:

"Cf. Weidauer Group II (unlisted denomination, plain incuses); Artemision –; cf. Elektron I 3 (plain incuses); Traité I 11 var. (same); SNG Kayhan 673 var. (same); SNG von Aulock 7762 var. (same); Rosen –."

The "cf Elekton I 3 (plain incuses)" means that the coin is similar to the Elektron coin, but that the Elektron coin has plain incuses, while the coin being described doesn't.   Now, all the following coins are listed as var. (same) - this means that the described coin has the same variation from the referenced coin - i.e., the referenced coins all have plain incuses.

This usage of (same) is commonly found in sales descriptions - they're just not listing (plain incuses) repeatedly.

ATB,

Aidan.

[sand]

2 hours ago, akeady said:

To explain the (same), the CNG attribution is:

"Cf. Weidauer Group II (unlisted denomination, plain incuses); Artemision –; cf. Elektron I 3 (plain incuses); Traité I 11 var. (same); SNG Kayhan 673 var. (same); SNG von Aulock 7762 var. (same); Rosen –."

The "cf Elekton I 3 (plain incuses)" means that the coin is similar to the Elektron coin, but that the Elektron coin has plain incuses, while the coin being described doesn't.   Now, all the following coins are listed as var. (same) - this means that the described coin has the same variation from the referenced coin - i.e., the referenced coins all have plain incuses.

This usage of (same) is commonly found in sales descriptions - they're just not listing (plain incuses) repeatedly.

ATB,

Aidan.

Your explanation is interesting. Perhaps CNG was trying to say something like that. Perhaps you have more experience with such things, because I haven't previously noticed the word "same" in sales descriptions, even though I've looked at many sales descriptions, including fixed price sales and auctions, although perhaps not for many early Greek electrum coins, or other high end Greek coins. Also, I probably tend to only look at the attribution reference number, and I probably tend to ignore subtleties such as "variation". However, at the risk of beating a dead horse, I have questions.

1. Why doesn't the "cf. Elektron I 3 (plain incuses)" attribution have the word "var.", like the Traite and SNG Kayhan attributions? Did CNG forget to add the word "var."?

2. SNG Kayhan 673 does not have plain incuses. At least 1 of the SNG Kayhan 673 incuses has geometric shapes inside the incuse, similar to @panzerman's coin's incuses. Did CNG not notice that?

Edited August 13, 2023 by sand

[akeady]

6 hours ago, sand said:

Your explanation is interesting. Perhaps CNG was trying to say something like that. Perhaps you have more experience with such things, because I haven't previously noticed the word "same" in sales descriptions, even though I've looked at many sales descriptions, including fixed price sales and auctions, although perhaps not for many early Greek electrum coins, or other high end Greek coins. Also, I probably tend to only look at the attribution reference number, and I probably tend to ignore subtleties such as "variation". However, at the risk of beating a dead horse, I have questions.

1. Why doesn't the "cf. Elektron I 3 (plain incuses)" attribution have the word "var.", like the Traite and SNG Kayhan attributions? Did CNG forget to add the word "var."?

2. SNG Kayhan 673 does not have plain incuses. At least 1 of the SNG Kayhan 673 incuses has geometric shapes inside the incuse, similar to @panzerman's coin's incuses. Did CNG not notice that?

This is commonly encountered - a quick search of sixbid sold (& upcoming) items shows up this in many descriptions from several auction houses (I counted 8 different auction houses before I gave up scrolling):

https://www.sixbid-coin-archive.com/#/en/search?text=var (same)

There's no need for "var" in the Elektron attribution as they've already used "cf."

I don't have SNG Kayhan, so don't know whether they're right or wrong!

ATB,
Aidan.

[Glebe]

The CNG write-up includes a reference to Traite I II, (i.e, Babelon presumably), but Babelon Plate I No. 11 shows a striated hemi-hekte of Miletus, not a plain (or worn) trite, and I can't find any coin in Babelon like the one in question here.

Ross G.

Edited August 14, 2023 by Glebe

[sand]

12 hours ago, akeady said:

This is commonly encountered - a quick search of sixbid sold (& upcoming) items shows up this in many descriptions from several auction houses (I counted 8 different auction houses before I gave up scrolling):

https://www.sixbid-coin-archive.com/#/en/search?text=var (same)

There's no need for "var" in the Elektron attribution as they've already used "cf."

I don't have SNG Kayhan, so don't know whether they're right or wrong!

ATB,
Aidan.

@akeady Thanks for the explanation, and thanks for the list of sixbid "var. (same)" examples. I looked at some of the "var. (same)" examples. In the future, if I have the time, I hope to study the "var. (same)" examples further, as well as "cf." examples.

[LONGINUS]

Grüße von einem befreundeten Münzsammler, @panzerman ! It’s always great to see your posts.

 

This is my one and only coin with an incuse reverse and it doesn’t compare to yours in age and rarity but it’s generally from the same Lydian region.

 

 

[DLTcoins]

I tried to write an explanation of CNG cataloguing as Barry Murphy explained it to me years ago but I fell short. I am sadly under-caffeinated this afternoon. Suffice it to say that all of the cited examples are noted as having "plain" incuses, unlike the CNG coin which has "geometric pattern" incuses. The information in parentheses always refers to the cited example, not the coin being catalogued. "Same" means "same as preceding"; in this case, ultimately, Elektron I 3. In other words, wherever you read "same", simply substitute "plain incuses".

[edit] I see this was well explained already but I overlooked it. As I said, I'm under-caffeinated today.

 

 

Edited August 15, 2023 by DLTcoins