Troas Sigeion, facing Athena/Owl without crescent

[Martin B4]

I took some photographs this weekend of a lot of coins I purchased a while ago and I remarked this common Sigeion Ae 13 mm, 1,62 g without the usual crescent in the left field of the reverse.
Does anybody know this type, even ref's ?
Neither I saw it before nor found on AC and WW.

Best regards
Martin

[Martin B4]

No ideas ?
Any opinion would be apreciated.

[shanxi]

ISEGRIM lists two examples without mentioning a crescent, one bigger, one of similar weight:


 TROAS, Sigeium. 400-300 BC. AE. Obverse: HEAD WOMAN FR / ATHENA (HELMET). Reverse: SIGE; BIRD R / OWL (HEAD FR).
   1. 1.51g 06h SNG Copenhagen volume 20 #498

Maybe you should check if there is really no crescent or if they just forgot to list it.


The other possibility is a die problem.

[Martin B4]

Thank you shanxi.

Unfortunately i'm not familiar with Isegrimm. How do you check something with is absent ?

I also thought about a die problem but the left field don't show any traces of some strike,
it's just clean and flat. It could be some rare hybrid of this reverse type that I found :

[stevex6]

Martin => wow, that's a fantastic new OP-coin (congrats)

Sadly, I can't give any direct info regarding your sweet none-crescent example, but I can toss my example into this thread (hopefully it'll show other members just how cool these Troas Sigeion actually are)

... two bodies are better than one



 

[Martin B4]

Thank's Steve.

When I was searching for mine I remarked your coin on AC.
What a crazy surface, very nice coin.

"... two bodies are better than one".

I would say that depends for what.

[Martin B4]

I don't own SNG Cop. vol 20 and I would be very grateful if someone could check this for me.
Like shanxi noted it should be 498.
On WW, 498 is incorrect and shows Athena to right on the obverse.

Greetings
Martin



 

[Martin B4]

Really nobody who would have a look on number 498-SNG Copenhagen vol. 20/Troas ??

[curtislclay]

No crescent is visible on 498, and the text definitely distinguishes it from 495-497 which have the crescent.

495-7: Rev. Owl; on l., crescent; on r., Σιγε.

498: Rev. Owl; on r., Σιγε.

However the coin is small and rather worn, and I am consulting the SNG Copenhagen reprint whose images may be fuzzier than in the original. So I'm not totally convinced that there was never a crescent on 498.

[Martin B4]

Great. From now on my coin has a ref.
Thank you very much Curtis.
 
Best regards
Martin

[peterpil19]

Really nobody who would have a look on number 498-SNG Copenhagen vol. 20/Troas ??

Hi Martin,

Sorry I did not see your post until now. I am glad Curtis helped you out.

For future reference, I have SNG Cop. and would be happy to assist you or anyone else who is looking to confirm a reference.

However the coin is small and rather worn, and I am consulting the SNG Copenhagen reprint whose images may be fuzzier than in the original. So I'm not totally convinced that there was never a crescent on 498.

As impressive as the reprinted set looks in my bookcase, the plates are not very clear, especially for small coins. I am glad to hear I am not the only one who struggles with them!

Peter

[djmacdo]

I have seen and even obtained a number of the original casts from which the SNG Cop plates were mad.  The fuzzy images are not the result of photography or reproduction of the photographs--the plaster casts themselves are not sharp!

[peterpil19]

Thanks, I never would have guessed that!

With today's technology there is certainly value in printing catalogues in higher resolution so that when using a magnifying glass you can see something more than big black ink dots.

I find I sometimes need to check my work in consulting physical references with photos of the same coins online. Particularly, when the descriptions of the coin are not clear or where control / field marks not clearly visible in the plates.

Peter

[curtislclay]

Where did you see those Copenhagen casts, and even manage to obtain some?

I have seen the plaster casts mounted on cardboard from which the plates for BMCRE V (Severan period) were made; the BM, not needing the plaster casts in addition to the coins themselves, donated them to the Ashmolean Museum.

Those BM casts are excellent, as one can see from the very sharp plates that were made from them. Did anyone explain to you why the Copenhagen casts were deficient?

[djmacdo]

Years ago I wrote to Copenhagen when I was working on the coins of Aphrodisias, hoping for sharper photos of some coins, and they simply sent me the plaster casts.  They were not particularly sharp.