Questionable Alexander the Great tet

[Reid Goldsborough]

Anybody see anything wrong with this piece?

[BROKEN LINK REMOVED BY ADMIN]

This is a scan from a printed source, so there are some scanning artifacts visible in the image that manifest as vertical striations -- discount these.

The metrology is correct: 16.93g, 31.5mm.

[Lloyd Taylor]

Do you have a Price reference for it and to which mint is it attributed? Reverse looks a little unusual, but I am only familiar with the equivalent products from the eastern mints.  I suspect this is not one of those. The beveled flan fabric of the obverse is quite distinctive, if not unusual, and should be diagnostic of the mint. That said (in my limited experience) I have not seen many Alexanders with such a beveled flan... given this fabric I'd say it must be late posthumous if genuine, perhaps from Asia Minor (Temnus or similar?).

For me nothing leaps out as an obvious signal to question authenticity, but I'd want to compare it to other products from the mint to which it is attributed to say for sure.

[Reid Goldsborough]

It's described as an unpublished posthumous variety from Chios, cf. Price 2324.

[Lloyd Taylor]

Price 2324 (a drachm rather than a tetradrachm) from Wildwinds below...the reverse style looks only ok compared to this example (within the range of variation of celator skill) although all design elements are more crudely executed. Other varieties listed from Chios on Wildwinds show some beveled edges on the obverse. I seen no obvious reason to doubt authenticity.

Is there anything specific that causes you doubts?

[rover1.3]

The beveled flan fabric of the obverse is quite distinctive, if not unusual, and should be diagnostic of the mint. That said (in my limited experience) I have not seen many Alexanders with such a beveled flan... given this fabric I'd say it must be late posthumous if genuine, perhaps from Asia Minor (Temnus or similar?).

I would like to add that this beveled flan fabric is often seen on stephanophoric tets from Asia minor, Kyme, Myrina, Smyrna, Herakleia, Magnesia etc.
Not common to Alexanders, however i found 2 examples on acsearch from Chios again showing this.
http://www.acsearch.info/ext-record.html?id=255635
http://www.acsearch.info/ext-record.html?id=151364

On reverse i can't understand the area of Zeus head, and ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ legend, looks like flat struck or something? Scan doesn't help much.

[Lloyd Taylor]

I now see some potential parallels with this Beirut forgery in the fakes database...https://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/displayimage.php?pos=-9937

The fabric mimics that of this Beirut forgery.  In summary it is a bit too beveled for my liking.

Based on this I'd need to more closely examine and research the coin before confirming authenticity.

[rover1.3]

I now see some potential parallels with this Beirut forgery in the fakes database...https://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/displayimage.php?pos=-9937

The fabric mimics that of this Beirut forgery.  In summary it is a bit too beveled for my liking.

Based on this I'd need to more closely examine and research the coin before confirming authenticity.

Don't doubt the piece needs more close examination,however i think that the only common with the above fake is the similar flan.
But flans of these kind there also exist in genuine examples of the type as we have said before.

[Lloyd Taylor]

But flans of these kind there also exist in genuine examples of the type as we have said before.

Agree, but on the Chios examples I have located nothing near as pronounced as evident on this coin.  Hence my concern.  Also the very clumsy execution of the head of Zeus, top throne back and the legend on the reverse now rings a few bells because they are atypical of the examples located to date by me. Hence the need not just for closer examination but further research on the  Alexandrine coinage of Chios as a precursor to any confident statement of authenticity.  To this I'd also add a review of the catalog of Beirut forgeries of Alexanders for comparative purposes. I dare say Reid G would know far more about the Beirut school of forgery and its spread of operation than me. And remeber that Reid has yet to explain what he sees wrong with it...after all he posted it as Questionable Alexander the Great tet on the Fake Ancient Coin reports and Discussion Board.  I can only assume he had good reason for doing so. So come on all you eagle eyed fake spotters...join the game!

[Lloyd Taylor]

A bit more sniffing around the coinage of Chios, using Wildwinds and acsearch (unfortunately I don't have Price) suggests a further problem. 

Price 2324 on which this coin is clearly based is a drachm rather than a tetradrachm. I assume that this coin is being posited/sold as an undocumented denominational variant of Price 2324.  However, Price 2324 dates to the early third century BC while the beveled edge flans of Chios only come into existence in the early second century (ca. 190 BC).   This (plus the previous post) strongly points to a Beirut school fake, because the style is clearly based on Price P2324 (and different to the style a century later) while the fabric of the flan is associated with late posthumous Alexanders a century later.

For those with an eye to detail the posted coin appears to have a dotted obverse border. Such does not exist on the later beveled flan coinage of Chios.

In summary, it appears likely that the style and the fabric of the coin are inconsistent and a century apart. Someone with Price can probably confirm this deduction.

[rover1.3]

A bit more sniffing around the coinage of Chios, using Wildwinds and acsearch (unfortunately I don't have Price) suggests a further problem. 

Price 2324 on which this coin is clearly based is a drachm rather than a tetradrachm. I assume that this coin is being posited/sold as an undocumented denominational variant of Price 2324.  However, Price 2324 dates to the early third century BC while the beveled edge flans of Chios only come into existence in the late second century (ca. 190 BC).   This (plus the previous post) strongly points to a Beirut school fake, because the style is clearly based on Price P2324 (and different to the style a century later) while the fabric of the flan is associated with late posthumous Alexanders a century later.

For those with an eye to detail the posted coin appears to have a dotted obverse border. Such does not exist on the later beveled flan coinage of Chios.

In summary, it appears likely that the style and the fabric of the coin are inconsistent and a century apart. Someone with Price can probably confirm this deduction.

Can you see the stylistic similarities with this?
 http://www.acsearch.info/ext-record.html?id=246650
Of course you can. This drachm's flan is also beveled.Although it is dated 336-323.

I don't know what to think now.

[Lloyd Taylor]

Yes but note it is anomalous with all the company it keeps in the Price 2324 coins on acsearch. The others are sans beveling, and bear obverse dotted borders. Is it authentic or possibly another product of the Beirut school in the drachm denomination rather than the tetradrachm which heads this thread? 

Perhaps this is Reid's problem in determining authenticity?

[rover1.3]

No doubt that this drachm has many common things to share with the tet posted by Reid.
We shall wait and see.We tried our best,anyway.  I think is Reid's turn to speak now.

[rover1.3]

Have anything to add on these ?
http://www.acsearch.info/ext-record.html?id=255635
http://www.acsearch.info/ext-record.html?id=151364


Both beveled,both dated 336-323.Style,miles away compared to Reid's posted tet and the similar drachm,but although early dated,beveled.

I agree that this beveled style flan is often found on late examples(also often found on Stephanophoric tets as i have said before),but here we have got some beveled examples which seems to be much earlier. ( if authentic of course,and if correctly dated).

So i have to ask.
Maybe we don't have to be so strict about this beveled flan as far as dating?
Or maybe the mint of Chios was something like a "pioneer" on this?
These is not rhetorical,i am really asking.

[Lloyd Taylor]

Have anything to add on these ?
http://www.acsearch.info/ext-record.html?id=255635
http://www.acsearch.info/ext-record.html?id=151364

Both beveled,both dated 336-323.Style,miles away compared to Reid's posted tet and the similar drachm,but although early dated,beveled.

No both were Struck 190-165 BC... (re-)read the description as they quote the reign of ATG (336-323 BC) at the outset, which is of course totally irrelevant to the dating of the coins which are 250 years posthumous of ATG. The date of striking is quoted inside the description of each coin. 

So these two examples confirm the deduction made in the earlier post regarding the inconsistency of style versus fabric, being a century apart.

[rover1.3]

 LOL
Thanks Lloyd.I think that getting used in 'reading' style, i forgot to read descriptions!
You have covered my questions very very well.

[Lloyd Taylor]

Many is the time I've made the same mistake with Alexanders... the wording of the attributions can be deceptively misleading and confusing at first glance. I note CNG has moved recently to attributing and describing them with the lead given to issuing authority and mint, rather than the all encompassing but misleading Alexander the Great. This is a more accurate approach, given the majority were issued long after his death, by people and places that had little or nothing to do with ATG; those who hoped a little of his mojo might rub off on them.

[rover1.3]

I note CNG has moved recently to attributing and describing them with the lead given to issuing authority and mint, rather than the all encompassing but misleading Alexander the Great. This is a more accurate approach, given the majority were issued long after his death, by people and places that had little or nothing to do with ATG; those who hoped a little of his mojo might rub off on them.

Yes,i have noticed that too. Far away better.Now,even a new collector can buy a drachm from Lampsakos for example and know immediately that this was issued under
Antigonos,although we can read AΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ on reverse. It took me 6 months to understand this when i started.

[Lloyd Taylor]

Now,even a new collector can buy a drachm from Lampsakos for example and know immediately that this was issued under
Antigonos,although we can read AΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ on reverse. It took me 6 months to understand this when i started.

Yeah...its all Greek to the beginner! 

[Lloyd Taylor]

Another noteworthy point is that the beveled edge tets all bear a magistrates name in exergue, so that it is difficult to run the argument that this is some sort of aberrant late posthumous issue imitating an early posthumous issue.

[Reid Goldsborough]

I had wanted to give others a chance to respond before piping up further.

The coin that started this thread was published in the 2007 book Alexander and the Hellenistic Kingdom: The Westmoreland Collection by Kenneth A. Sheedy. Sheedy also authored SNG Australia I, published in 2008. His Alexander book is excellent, doing a great job of cataloging this Australian collection as well as bringing the latest knowledge not only to the coins of Alexander the Great but also to those minted in Alexander's name or with his image by Philip III, Seleukus I, Ptolemy I, Lysimachos, Aesillas, and the Koinon of the Macedonians.

But ... when I saw the coin that started this thread, cataloged as No. 23 in Sheedy's book, I immediately felt uneasy about it. The iconography to my eyes is exaggerated and dramatized in much the same way as the Bulgarian copyists employ, with Herakles' forehead and Zeus' head standing out most, and the flan appears uncharacteristic of early posthumous Alexanders from Chios, an argument that Lloyd has delineated better than I could have.

I tracked down Sheedy's email and sent him a polite note from different email addresses a couple of months ago, praising his book but also mentioning my concerns about this one specimen and asking if he had learned anything new about it since the publication of his book. He didn't respond. His prerogative.

Just as fakes on occasion slip through the cracks with even the best auctioneers, it's not unthinkable for them to do the same with scholars. But, as balance, this no doubt is an uncommon phenomenon, which makes it that much more interesting.

[Lloyd Taylor]

I immediately felt uneasy about it. The iconography to my eyes is exaggerated and dramatized in much the same way as the Bulgarian copyists employ, with Herakles' forehead and Zeus' head standing out most, and the flan appears uncharacteristic of early posthumous Alexanders from Chios, an argument that Lloyd has delineated better than I could have.

And the same can be said of the drachm (Price 2324) posted by rover1.3....
http://www.acsearch.info/record.html?id=246650

It is possible (indeed I would say probable) that what we are seeing are two fakes based on Price 2324 but made in both the drachm and tetradrachm (unknown) denominations, both from the same hands/school.

[Lloyd Taylor]

The coin that started this thread was published in the 2007 book Alexander and the Hellenistic Kingdom: The Westmoreland Collection by Kenneth A. Sheedy. ..... I tracked down Sheedy's email and sent him a polite note from different email addresses a couple of months ago, praising his book but also mentioning my concerns about this one specimen and asking if he had learned anything new about it since the publication of his book. He didn't respond.

Does the Westmoreland Collection volume note when the coin entered the collection and anything of its provenance? 

The date could be a pointer to whether the Beirut School, or the later Bulgarian is the potential source.  A sixties-seventies date would point to the former as a potential source.  I am inclined to say Beirut Scool based on the analogy with some other Beirut School fakes that have incongruously bevelled edges compared to the authentics of the period they seek to replicate.

[Reid Goldsborough]

Does the Westmoreland Collection volume note when the coin entered the collection and anything of its provenance?

Nope.

[Joe Sermarini]

Almost certainly fake. 

[El Reye]

I’m not sure that we should condemn this coin based from only observing such low quality pictures, however I do recall seeing a similar tetradrachm recently, in the last year or so, and Zeus does look suspicious.  I would expect that if this coin was faked there would others out there on the market.

Cameron