Do you think this bronze of Amisos is imitative?

[JAZ Numismatics]

This coin was sold to me as a contemporary imitation...

 

But I don't see that it varies much from most coins considered official, for example this one...

 

These types do come in obviously imitative varieties...

 

But mine us nowhere near as crude. I wonder what the seller saw in it to call it imitative...

Edited December 13, 2024 by JAZ Numismatics

[expat]

I can´t see any major differences either. There are so many varieties of this type. Here is mine

[Ed Snible]

I believe it is imitative.

On the reverse, the AMI-SOY inscription was not engraved by someone who knows the alphabet.  My experience from looking at many Amisos aegis/Nike examples is that if the reverse inscription is blundered, the artistic style will be a lot more cartoony, and dealers will call it imitative.  We never see cartoony art with good inscriptions.

There is a great variety in style between the different "imitative" examples. The ethnic is blundered in different ways. There are different levels of crudeness in the gorgoneion and in the tufts surrounding it. Nike sometimes becomes a stick-figure. The polygonal aegis seems to always lose its sides and become a simple lined border.

We have no way of knowing who made the poor-style types.  In 1875 J. Friedlander proposed that Amisos was called Samisos for a time because he found a coin inscribed SAMI-SOY.  In 1978 Michael Mitchiner described these as being “Sarmatian” (a tribe on the northern Black Sea coast) in his catalog.  I asked François de Callataÿ, an expert on these, if there was a basis for Mitchiner's theory, such as Northern findspots blundered hoards.  He said the blundered coins are found together with regular ones and they could be the work of poor Pontic die cutters -- there is no proof of them being from another culture.

It could be that there was a great range of skill among die cutters -- there could be official-style imitative issues, or poor style genuine issues.  I believe the coins are semi-imitative.  Mithradates' was allied with Scythians who might have been authorized to make the coins, but illiterate.  However, that is only my theory, I have no evidence.

Scythian tribes?, in imitation of Amisos, 95-65 BC, AE21, 5.1g
Obv: Crude aegis
Rev: Blundered inscription, crude Nike
Ref: Mitchiner, _Ancient and Classical World_, #339
From eBay, March 2001

Edited December 13, 2024 by Ed Snible

[Ryro]

It looks barbarous to me. Though, the type itself is pretty "rugged".

Here's one of mine so poorly made there's no gorgoneion!

 

[JAZ Numismatics]

27 minutes ago, Ryro said:

It looks barbarous to me. Though, the type itself is pretty "rugged".

Here's one of mine so poorly made there's no gorgoneion!

 

That's actually a pretty cool double strike error.

[-monolith-]

Usually the easiest way to tell a barbarous copy from a standard issue is the borders around the obverse portrait on the barbarous copies tend to be circular while on standard issues they appear more like an octagon. 

[robinjojo]

The first coin does look imitative, quite crude with the die work.

Here my example, purchased from Roma E-Sale 93, lot 425.

Pontos, Amisos, Æ21I circa 111-105 or  95-90 BC.

SNG Stancomb 690

7.98 grams

[JAZ Numismatics]

2 hours ago, -monolith- said:

Usually the easiest way to tell a barbarous copy from a standard issue is the borders around the obverse portrait on the barbarous copies tend to be circular while on standard issues they appear more like an octagon. 

And the border on mine is definitely slouching toward circular. I think that, plus the comments from other posters have inclined me to agree with the dealer. I particulatly like @Ed Snible's characterization "semi-imitative." 

[LONGINUS]

Interesting post, John,

Here is my Amisos and a few other gorgons.

 

[Alegandron]

Pontic Kingdom, Amisos
AE21, 6.95g; 85-65 BC
Obv: Aegis with Gorgon head at center.
Rev: Nike advancing right carrying palm branch. AMI-ΣOY in field with mongrams.
Reference: SNG XI Stancomb 688

Ex: @JAZ Numismatics