Opinions on a coin that has caused me considerable anguish

[DonnaML]

9 minutes ago, kirispupis said:

1. Maybe it could be a panther?

That's no panther, spotted or otherwise. The body is too thick, and I've never seen one with the head turned back in that way.

[Deinomenid]

24 minutes ago, kirispupis said:

Could it have been a mistake by the engraver or the tooler

Certainly possible.

The letter-cutter managed  to  completely screw up some amazing  work by Phrygillos here! -

ΣΥΡΑΚΟΣΙΩΝ was botched as ΣΥΡKOOΣΙΩΝ and then corrected.

 

 

 

[John Conduitt]

47 minutes ago, kirispupis said:

At least one of the following is NOT true:

1. This is a genuine ancient coin
2. This coin has not been tooled to depict something else
3. The obverse depicts Dionysos
4. The reverse depicts a butting bull
5. The inscription says NIKAIEΩN 

I think to prove it beyond all doubt, you will need to determine 1 or 2. While 3-5 can raise suspicions, there's always the argument that they're not completely impossible.

The coin has several aspects that don't look right for a genuine coin, but are any knock outs without having it in hand?

So if you can't do that, you might have to find a real coin that matches either side of this one but isn't Dionysos or isn't inscribed NIKAIEΩN.

A good candidate might actually be Seleucid, like this of Seleukos I, although it's too big at 20mm vs 12mm (perhaps it could be considerably trimmed given the shape). They're bronze. The bull is very similar, with the same body, tail and head shapes, and the back left leg leads very far forward. The obverse is Medusa, but perhaps she could be re-carved to have a rather flat head with ivy wreath. It might explain why Dionysos seems to be leaning forward.

Edited September 24, 2023 by John Conduitt

[kirispupis]

34 minutes ago, DonnaML said:

That's no panther, spotted or otherwise. The body is too thick, and I've never seen one with the head turned back in that way.

Agreed. I came to the same conclusion with a search. Here's on of my few panthers. It seems that it's no bull that this is a bull.

Islands off Aiolis. Nasos Pordosilene
3rd-2nd centuries BCE
AE 8.43mm .68g
Obverse: Laureate head of Apollo right
Reverse: ΝΑΣ, panther crouching left, head half reverted
SNG Copenhagen 431

[kirispupis]

2 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

I think to prove it beyond all doubt, you will need to determine 1 or 2. While 3-5 can raise suspicions, there's always the argument that they're not completely impossible.

The coin has several aspects that don't look right for a genuine coin, but are any knock outs without having it in hand?

So if you can't do that, you might have to find a real coin that matches either side of this one but isn't Dionysos or isn't inscribed NIKAIEΩN.

A good candidate might actually be Seleucid, like this of Seleukos I, although it's too big at 20mm vs 12mm (perhaps it could be considerably trimmed given the shape). They're bronze. The bull is very similar, with the same body, tail and head shapes, and the back left leg leads very far forward. The obverse is Medusa, but perhaps she could be re-carved to have a rather flat head with ivy wreath. It might explain why Dionysos seems to be leaning forward.
 

The Seleukos coin you mention was a primary motivation for attributing it to Nicaea, Bithynia. It seems there were at least three denominations of the Seleukid coin, with the lightest being about 2.4g. Presumably if the coin were heavily engraved to something else, it would lose some weight. Reaching 1.8g seems excessive, but perhaps possible. The obverse would have had to have been entirely redone because the Seleukid coin does not have the complete head, while this one does.

Another difference is the Seleukid coins of 2.4g are about 14mm, while this one is 12mm.

Similarly, I don't think the Massalia coins work here either. They weigh and measure about the same as this one - 1.75g and 12mm - but if the coin were redone I would expect it to lose some weight.

[DonnaML]

This female panther/leopard of mine from Philadelphia in Lydia, depicting Dionysos on the obverse, actually does have its head turned back -- but it's not pointing downwards like a butting bull's, and the body is clearly much more slender than the animal on your coin.

Edited September 24, 2023 by DonnaML

[ajax]

10 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

I think to prove it beyond all doubt, you will need to determine 1 or 2. While 3-5 can raise suspicions, there's always the argument that they're not completely impossible.

The coin has several aspects that don't look right for a genuine coin, but are any knock outs without having it in hand?

So if you can't do that, you might have to find a real coin that matches either side of this one but isn't Dionysos or isn't inscribed NIKAIEΩN.

A good candidate might actually be Seleucid, like this of Seleukos I, although it's too big at 20mm vs 12mm (perhaps it could be considerably trimmed given the shape). They're bronze. The bull is very similar, with the same body, tail and head shapes, and the back left leg leads very far forward. The obverse is Medusa, but perhaps she could be re-carved to have a rather flat head with ivy wreath. It might explain why Dionysos seems to be leaning forward.

 

Where did you spot the medusa?! Why do I see the head of Hercules or Alexander? 🤔

[ambr0zie]

16 minutes ago, kirispupis said:

Similarly, I don't think the Massalia coins work here either. They weigh and measure about the same as this one - 1.75g and 12mm - but if the coin were redone I would expect it to lose some weight.

I think @John Conduitt is on a correct (and disturbing) track with the Seleukos I hypothesis 😐

Regarding the weight, the Massalia coin I posted as a random example (I am not saying this was the original coin in your case, I just searched for an obverse with head to right and a bull butting right with head reverted)

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=108804

is 13 mm and 2,42 g. The diameter would fit. The weight would also fit, if somebody would re-carve a Massalia coin of this type, and the remaining weight would be similar to yours. 

 

[Severus Alexander]

After reading the whole thread I’m also inclined to think it’s a fantasy. But I want to add one other theory to the mix since a fantasy ex nihilo seems so unlikely, what with the surfaces and testimony of later alteration.

Overstrikes can produce some puzzling coins. The bull reminds me most of the Seleukid type introduced by Seleukos I:

What if that were overstruck by e.g. this Dionysos type of Alexander Balas?

Maybe you could get those leaves appearing out of context. Both coins come in a variety of styles so could maybe produce the somewhat cherubic look of the OP coin. (Both coins are the right size, too.)

That leaves the odd reverse legend to explain. My suggestion there is that the mess produced by the overstrike was “restored” (i.e. tooled) into its present form, along with some smoothing to reduce the evidence of overstriking. That would fit with what the dealer said.

It’s quite likely that the two types I’ve chosen here aren’t the best ones to represent the general idea, but I wanted to put it out there in case someone else can improve upon it. I do think the Seleukid bull is the best match for the reverse, other than the legend of course. Maybe a later Seleukid bull type was overstruck on a Dionysos coin, i.e. I’ve got the order wrong. There are other Dionysos coin possibilities, and the Seleukid bull motif was used later e.g. by Selekos II. The bull was paired with heads other than Medusa as well, e.g. Apollo:

The cleaner lines of the head of Apollo might fit better than the complex Medusa.

Anyway, you get the idea!

@kirispupis, it seems to me there are some indications on the coin that overstriking is a possibility. What do you think?

P.S. I hadn’t seen John’s suggestion or the later discussion just now. I will add that there are examples of the bull type fitting the size and weight criteria e.g. http://numismatics.org/sco/id/sc.1.23 .

Edited September 24, 2023 by Severus Alexander

[Ed Snible]

It hard to tell from a photo, but is it possible the ivy crown has sharp lines and is XF, while the rest of the coin is F condition?

If so, then the ivy is newer than the rest of the coin.

[robinjojo]

Well, I am way outside the field here, with such learned colleagues in this specialized area of Greek coinage. 

I can make some general observations/question about this coin. 

Isn't the portrait Dionysus?  The heart-shaped leaves are a definite indicator.

The coin has been cleaned and probably smoothed on the portrait's cheek, down to some bare metal in some small areas.  The raised metal on the cheek, trailing down below the chin looks like a secondary deposit that has been worked on, as I stated.

The obverse patina has some very small "chips" around the periphery of the obverse.  I don't see any overt signs of BD.  If there was some BD, it appears not to have been advanced.

I cannot say anything of a definitive nature about the reverse in terms of correct style, except that it is quite crude.  As with the obverse it seems to have been somewhat cleaned/smoothed, but not excessively.  There are also brick red deposits around the edge.  Sometimes these deposits have BD around and beneath them - very troublesome.  But, I do see any BD or former BD damage in those areas. (I am looking at the coin through Photoshop, with high magnification).  The bull's rear legs seem to be in the correct orientation for the pose. There is an odd raised feature beneath the bull, but that could be damage to the die or something else.  The bull's head is eroded. I think that was caused by BD.  The exergue is a mess, but that could have been simply sloppy die work or strike.  

I wish that I could be more helpful, but I really know next to nothing about this issue. Since this is a very expensive coin, I would try to work out something with the seller where the opinion of someone who is an expert, generally speaking, such as Barry Murphy, but who is also "unlicensed" (whatever that means).  I would not be in a hurry to return the coin.  Try to get an extended period with the buyer for return.  Give yourself some time to get over the initial disappointment and worry, do research, show the coin to others.   There can be a world of difference between judging a coin base on a photo and having it in hand. 

As far as butting bulls are concerned, the rear legs can have different positions/orientation, as can be seen with this  tetradrachm or double nomos from Lucania Thorium, 443-400 BC. ¡Olé!

 

Edited September 24, 2023 by robinjojo

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

You'll have to decide which course makes you the happiest.  I personally would return any coin which gives one anguish, as soon as possible before it gets hard to return.

I'm speaking from experience, not with a dodgy seller, but with a coin which I regretted buying soon after.  Around 2011-ish, I bought a Trajan Decius Double Sestertius. While the coin isn't fake, it just looks weird.  It probably isn't tooled per se, but I think deposits happened in the worst place possible and digging them out just made the coin look ugly.  While it got me in the Decius double sestertius club, I still think to myself, why did I buy that one? (Well, the answer is that I could afford this example). One had shown up a bit earlier at the same price point, with not the greatest surfaces, but unworked.  I didn't buy that because I couldn't afford the coin at that moment.

Within the same year I also bought a super decrepit Caesar portrait denarius.  While this one was quite commensurate with it's price point and it did snag me an expensive type, I've never been super-happy with it.

Anyway, you'll have to the one to make the decision.  You've had a lot of good advice, pro and con, on here.  I personally wouldn't be happy with something which I had a nagging doubt/regret about, especially something expensive.

The double box idea is a very sound one.  It's better to be safe and go to the extra effort.  If one just refuses it, it's probably going to take forever in the return trip and there's more that could go wrong.

I hope that whatever choice you make will be the happiest course for you. 

Edited September 25, 2023 by Nerosmyfavorite68

[kirispupis]

1 hour ago, Nerosmyfavorite68 said:

You'll have to decide which course makes you the happiest.  I personally would return any coin which gives one anguish, as soon as possible before it gets hard to return.

I'm speaking from experience, not with a dodgy seller, but with a coin which I regretted buying soon after.  Around 2011-ish, I bought a Trajan Decius Double Sestertius. While the coin isn't fake, it just looks weird.  It probably isn't tooled per se, but I think deposits happened in the worst place possible and digging them out just made the coin look ugly.  While it got me in the Decius double sestertius club, I still think to myself, why did I buy that one? (Well, the answer is that I could afford this example). One had shown up a bit earlier at the same price point, with not the greatest surfaces, but unworked.  I didn't buy that because I couldn't afford the coin at that moment.

Within the same year I also bought a super decrepit Caesar portrait denarius.  While this one was quite commensurate with it's price point and it did snag me an expensive type, I've never been super-happy with it.

Anyway, you'll have to the one to make the decision.  You've had a lot of good advice, pro and con, on here.  I personally wouldn't be happy with something which I had a nagging doubt/regret about, especially something expensive.

The double box idea is a very sound one.  It's better to be safe and go to the extra effort.  If one just refuses it, it's probably going to take forever in the return trip and there's more that could go wrong.

I hope that whatever choice you make will be the happiest course for you. 

At this point, my most likely action will be to return the coin when I receive it about a month from now.

In the meantime, I intend to continue to research to discover if there's any truth to it. Right now, my biggest issue is I can't find a narrative: the obverse is unknown, as is the inscription. It's very possible that the reason I can't find any strong attribution is it's not a genuine coin.

That being said, it's already been a win in terms of learning. Before this, I knew neither the history of Nikaia, Gaul or Nicaea, Bithynia. I also now have a copy of the Dionysiaca next to my bed and will start it when I finish my current read - The Elephantine Papyri in English. I've also learned a bit more on what to look for in fakes. So far, my most likely action will be to ship it back, but the amount I've learned will be worth the roughly 20 bucks or so in shipping.

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

That sounds like a sound course of action.  An expensive buy should make one happy.

Speaking of anguish, in my other hobby there's an effort to crowdfund the release of a partially lost series, starring some iconic Hollywood actors.  They made the mistake of making it a group email, and there was infighting and a peanut gallery.  There goes my peaceful inbox, for a couple of days.

 

[DonnaML]

2 hours ago, kirispupis said:

my current read - The Elephantine Papyri in English. 

What do you think of it? I've always been fascinated by the Elephantine Papyri -- especially those emanating from the Jewish community there (I remember the Brooklyn Museum exhibition in 2004) -- but the book seems rather expensive.

Edited September 25, 2023 by DonnaML

[Ocatarinetabellatchitchix]

I have good news for you Joseph. I took the liberty of talking to Mark Fox about your coin. He’s an expert on Provincial coinage, a collaborater in the RPC online project and…a living encyclopedia. Here are the informations he found. Hope you’ll be happy with it !

« What an interesting find, which is almost certainly genuine.  A very similar, but larger, coin was cataloged in Rec 1.3, page 397, no. 1:

 

 

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5494788f/f11.item

 

 

 

 

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8555930g

 

The authors also had a bit more to say about the coin in the introduction:

 

"Le monnayage autonome de Nicée est représenté par une pièce de bronze unique (n° 1) de la collection Waddington dont la mauvaise conservation ne permet guère de préciser l'époque : on peut hésiter entre la période qui s'écoula depuis la mort de Lysimaque (281) jusqu'à l'annexion bithynienne et une des éclipses de la domination romaine au temps des guerres mithridatiques."

 

 

From these observations, we can see why the type does not appear on RPC Online.  But, in light of Dimitar Pavlov's(?) discovery of the new, smaller denomination, I am not so certain if the original dating can be maintained.  On the new coin, there is definitely something written in the exergue, which resembles possibly at least one monogram.  If so, the symbol(s) may belong to a Roman governor/proconsul, in which case the coin is actually an early Roman provincial issue!  

 

Some years ago, I discovered this small coin type issued under Claudius:

 

 

https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/1/2048A

 

...so the existence of a similar sized bronze issued earlier should not be too surprising. »

 

[Deinomenid]

That's superb news!

Such a shame he "restored" it but excellent!

[kirispupis]

2 hours ago, Ocatarinetabellatchitchix said:

I have good news for you Joseph. I took the liberty of talking to Mark Fox about your coin. He’s an expert on Provincial coinage, a collaborater in the RPC online project and…a living encyclopedia. Here are the informations he found. Hope you’ll be happy with it !

« What an interesting find, which is almost certainly genuine.  A very similar, but larger, coin was cataloged in Rec 1.3, page 397, no. 1:

 

Wow! Thank you so much for tracking this down! I must admit that I had no idea that this could be a Roman provincial! That was in retrospect the assumption that I never examined - that this was a Greek coin of at least the 1st century BCE.

My anguish is now gone, so I'm again grateful.

[kirispupis]

9 hours ago, DonnaML said:

What do you think of it? I've always been fascinated by the Elephantine Papyri -- especially those emanating from the Jewish community there (I remember the Brooklyn Museum exhibition in 2004) -- but the book seems rather expensive.

It's fascinating. You in particular would like it due to your law background. Even my wife, who typically rolls her eyes at my books, found the real estate transactions amazing due to their similarity with today's (she's in real estate herself).

Note that the hardcover is about $500, but the paperback is $68 on Amazon and there's no difference in the material between them.

[John Conduitt]

Well that is good news. And putting it much later (and within the Roman Empire) gets rid of all the questions around 'why the bull and Dionysos'.

Edited September 25, 2023 by John Conduitt

[Marcosx]

23 hours ago, DonnaML said:

What exactly is a "licensed numismatist" anyway? Licensed by the State like a barber, a cosmetologist, or an acupuncturist? A physician, a dentist, or an attorney? I don't see "numismatist" anywhere on any list! How many universities even offer degrees in the subject? Does this dealer have a license himself?

In the state I live in you can get your numismatic learners permit at 16 and you can only look at coins with your parents until 18 then you can apply for your numismatists license after at least 48 hours of numismatics. If you find a sly instructor you can speed up the process and get your paperwork faster if you give them a handful of denari on the side.

[robinjojo]

All's well that ends well.

[Severus Alexander]

Fantastic!!  Note that Fox’s remarks are still consistent with a pre-Roman date (after all, we know the smaller denomination existed then too e.g. in Seleukid coinage). Even if it’s Roman it would likely be early i.e. Republican.

[ambr0zie]

On 9/24/2023 at 2:01 AM, kirispupis said:

because it would then be an important cornerstone in my collection

@kirispupis - I am happy for you because of the part I quoted above. I know what is the absolute joy when buying/winning a VERY IMPORTANT coin, the thrill of refreshing the tracking page 248 times a day, the chills when opening the package (I just received 3 coins today, not cornerstones, but quite important for me too!). 

... and then news like what you suspected appear and the disappointment is proportional to the previous joy 😐

Now the verdict was good. I hope the fact that the period is not what you suspected initially still makes it an important coin. 

[kirispupis]

44 minutes ago, ambr0zie said:

@kirispupis - I am happy for you because of the part I quoted above. I know what is the absolute joy when buying/winning a VERY IMPORTANT coin, the thrill of refreshing the tracking page 248 times a day, the chills when opening the package (I just received 3 coins today, not cornerstones, but quite important for me too!). 

... and then news like what you suspected appear and the disappointment is proportional to the previous joy 😐

Now the verdict was good. I hope the fact that the period is not what you suspected initially still makes it an important coin. 

Yes. This is a very good verdict and again I thank everyone who contributed. Any endeavour that leads to knowledge is worth it, but it's far better when the coin turns out to be nice too. 🙂 

I've decided to keep the coin and attribute it to Nikaia, Bithynia. Although I admit the argument is stronger that this was minted in roman republican times than around the time of Lysimachos, I'm going to put a deaf ear to that and "pretend" that the earlier attribution is correct, though I'll admit in my eventual write-up on my website that it's less likely.