Please Help Me out

[TreasHunt]

This is a piece that my duaghter asked me about.
It is from her boyfriend's family.

Aside from that, I know nothing.

They want to know obviously if it is real?
And any value.

Thank you for your help.

[TreasHunt]

Drat, I have to add the obverse:

[DruMAX]

I know you have a rough ID of what the coin is supposed to be but like I said before, I dont know a lot about these...save that there is a huge variety of these both during and after his life, lots of different styles, and lots of fakes. It may help if you were to give a weight for the coin? Certainly there is someone here who knows about this type of coin and can maybe give you a better idea of what you have.

[Ghengis_Jon]

http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/macedonia/kings/i.html

Begin with Phillip and Alexander.  Then to later time frames if not found.  This will at least start you down the identification path.  It won't tell you if its authentic, but its a start.

[DruMAX]

We did that, I believe it is Alexander III but we could not find an example that resembled it exactly. Maybe another search is in order

[xintaris75]

Looks cast.

[areich]

Really?
I think it looks quite convincing with all the little nicks and scratches and sharp detail.

[commodus]

I agree. Mind you Roman is my focus area but I know the signs of casting when I see them -- and I don't see them here.
Looks genuine to me.

[Robert_Brenchley]

It's not my area either, but it looks struck to me, unless it's a really good cast.

[dougsmit]

Alex experts:
What does the lack of a mintmark or minor type symbol tell you?  Can anyone post an image of a similarly unmarked Alex III?  Who has Price and is willing to look up coins missing these marks? 

You might have had better responses posting this on the Greek board.

[Callimachus]

Yes, the lack of a mint mark, monogram, or symbol is unusual.  So is the fact that the royal title reads down on the right side and Alexander's name reads down on the left side.

One thing we don't know about this coin is the size and weight.  I'm assuming it is a tetradrachm.

On page 652 (vol. 2), Price lists 12 tetradrachms that do not have mint marks, monograms, or symbols.  Only 3 of these 12 coins have the royal title on them: Barbarous B6 (illustrated - the title reads up on the left side, following the curve of the coin), Black Sea 1321 (not illustrated), and Sinope(?) 1275A (not illustrated). 

Five tetradrachms of Sinope are illustrated (#1255-58, 1276). Numbers 1256, 1257, 1258, and 1276 have the legends on the reverse arranged the way they are on the coin under discussion here. (These five coins also have other monograms and symbols on them.)  Since #1275A does not have any mint mark, monogram, or symbols on it, and other coins from Sinope have the words arranged as they are on this coin, it could be #1275A attributed to Sinope(?).  By putting a question mark (?) after Sinope, Price indicates attribution is not definite.   It would be nice if Price recorded the position of the individual words -- royal title, name -- but he does not.  So this is as far as I can go with this coin in Price.

[Danny S. Jones]

I find the photos of this piece very suspect. Several apparent casting bubbles, a possible casting seam on the side, and the black "shoe polish" looking "patina" that is so common among modern casts. I would need to look at the coin in hand, but from the overall style, and the possible casting flaws, there are just too many things that seem fishy to me.

I'm surprised no one else saw these possible casting bubbles. Am I wrong?

[commodus]

You might have had better responses posting this on the Greek board.

I concur.

I still think it looks struck and that the flaws it has are likely acquired ones and not evidence of fakery.

[Reid Goldsborough]

It's definitely supposed to be an Alexander tetradrachm as the legend reads "Of King Alexander." But it looks like none of the Alexanders without mint marks in Price, though Price 1275A from Sinope is indeed the closest, and it appears that this could well be the variety used as a model.

But the styling of Herakles is anomalous, with a brow that's positively Neanderthal. This kind of flamboyant exaggeration is typical of the Bulgarian copyists. Also, the style of the lion's paws tied around Herakles' neck is different than with the Sinope tetradrachms.

The piece shows no evidence of casting. Not all bumps or pits means the piece is cast. The piece looks convincingly aged, if artificially, and on the reverse Zeus' head is weakly struck, which also adds a suggestion of verisimilitude. Knowing the weight in grams and the diameter in millimeters could help, maybe a lot, or maybe not at all since they're likely in the correct range given the skill evident in producing this piece.

So, I'd guess modern Bulgarian, originally engraved, and produced with a hydraulic press. As usual I'm open to being persuaded otherwise.

[slokind]

The wild patterning of Herakles' hair and/or the lion's ruff bothers me a lot!  And I am inclined to agree with Reid on all points, even if it's not my field and even if Sinope was capable de tout.  This is different from Mesembrian anti-intellectual panache.  Whoever engraved it, when- or wherever, did not understand (e.g. lion's paws) what he was doing.  Pat L.

[Arminius]

A strange portrait, can´t remember having seen this on a genuine Alexander tet.

[xintaris75]

Also look at polished edge of rim, rough surface ta rev, which masked by fresh bits and scratches, very suspicious is area from dotring to edge of rim at 9h rev (looks like cast cavern, masked with alloy).

[DruMAX]

But the styling of Herakles is anomalous, with a brow that's positively Neanderthal. This kind of flamboyant exaggeration is typical of the Bulgarian copyists. Also, the style of the lion's paws tied around Herakles' neck is different than with the Sinope tetradrachms.

So, I'd guess modern Bulgarian

This was my first thought when seeing this coin in the beginning, although after looking at many other supposed authentic examples, portraits varied so wildly, although I did not see any that seemed very similar to this one, I did not want to condemn it. For one I do not know this type very well and there could easily be examples of a portraits like this that I have not seen....and certainly with all the styles of portraits both rough and far more refined...I just didnt know. I knew there were authentic examples without the markings as well so I knew that wasnt going to be an issue either. The coin appears struck to me as well. My first gut feeling was that it was not authentic but with so many doubts I decided to direct him here where people more versed in this type would be...I will try to get the OP to post weights.

Thanks

[Robert_Brenchley]

If it's pressed, that would make sense.

[mihali84]

The style and all other aspects of this coin aside, i feel the right hand of Zeus, or lack there of, is the biggest clue to the coins true identity.  There is no explanation for why the hand has been "worn" away.  Everything around the hand, ie; the eagle, the greek lettering (Alpha) and Zeus' right knee do not show the same amount of wear.  Also, the Beta, of BASILEOS is completley missing with no sign of ever being there, along with Zeus' left hand.  If this was due to a weak strike there would be other indicators such as missing detail from other, if not all low points( or should i say high points of the die).  Im not to sure what's going on behind Herakles' ear on the obverse, between the ear and the lions mouth.  That space is very suspicious as there seems to be built of silver that was or should not have been part of the design.  It shows a level of porosity that is not seen anywhere else on the coin.  My verdict is the coin is a really good cast.  Not very valuable but worth keeping. 

[Joe Sermarini]

As Reid said, "But the styling of Herakles is anomalous, with a brow that's positively Neanderthal. This kind of flamboyant exaggeration is typical of the Bulgarian copyists. Also, the style of the lion's paws tied around Herakles' neck is different than with the Sinope tetradrachms." 

As Pat said, "The wild patterning of Herakles' hair and/or the lion's ruff bothers me a lot!  And I am inclined to agree with Reid on all points, even if it's not my field and even if Sinope was capable de tout.  This is different from Mesembrian anti-intellectual panache.  Whoever engraved it, when- or wherever, did not understand (e.g. lion's paws) what he was doing."

As they said far better than a I could, the features appear to be modern.  I am confident this is a modern fake and the first generation of this fake originated from hand engraved modern dies.  We have seen many cast fakes made using fakes struck with modern dies.  This could be a cast but I don't see anything that makes that certain.  The missing detail is not from a weak strike, it is from an uneven strike.  Even if this is a cast, that flaw would have been on the original coin used to make the mould.  Still, it could be cast.  In any case, it is fake.   

[mihali84]

Even though with Joe's last post their seems to be no question left as to the coins authenticity, I did a little searching and found these Tet's listed under Price.  The styles of these coins seems faintly similar to the neanderthal like depiction of Herakles.  The bottom obverse image i feel is the closest to the coin in question.   

[Joe Sermarini]

I don't think it is very similar to any of those.  (Though I also find the third one a little suspicious.)  The only possibility that the coin that started this thread is ancient would be that it is an imitative or counterfeit.   My impression from the start was that it looks modern.  I wasn't initially prepared to condemn it with certainty but I find Reid and Pat's observations very convincing.     

[commodus]

My impression from the start was that it looks modern.  I wasn't initially prepared to condemn it with certainty but I find Reid and Pat's observations very convincing.     

I second this absolutely.
I initially doubted it was fake but these arguments are indeed convincing.

[mihali84]

By all means i was not posting the pics to suggest the coin in question was ancient, sorry if i gave that impression.