A fine early Histiaia tetrobol, with an unexpected obverse die

[Pharsalos]

Here is a pretty tetrobol I purchased last year:

AR Tetrobol
Size: 15mm Weight: 2.68 grams Die axis: 12h

Histiaia, Euboea
Mid 4th century BCE

Obverse: Head of the nymph Histiaia right, hair bound in decorative sakkos, wearing wreath with grape bunches, single-drop pendant earring, and pearl necklace.

Reverse: The nymph Histiaia seated right on the stern of galley, her left arm placed around stylis to right; galley decorated with wing, grape bunch to left; IΣTIAI-EΩN around.

Ex EJW Ltd eAuction 34 (20 June 2001), lot 49

Thanks to fellow Forvm members in this thread (https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=127804.msg768772;topicseen#msg768772), I was able to get some images of other coins with the same reference ‘Gulbenkian 510’. The first is the Gulbenkian coin, the second a BCD coin, and the third is from Naville X 1925.

There are differences in the reverse die of my coin compared to the others, but I think this could be explained by reverse die wear/breaks and photo lighting so I am inclined to think the reverses do match.

Although very similar, in my eyes my coin is not an obverse die match to the other coins.  The main differences I see are the grapes in the hair, the lower and upper seams of the sakkos, the upper part of the drop earring, the necklace position and some loose hair placements. A possibility I think is that that the original obverse die was reworked as the dies wore down. I would be interested to know the thoughts of other Forvm members, and ofcourse if you know of any other images I am missing.

[Steve Moulding]

The reverse die feels different to me. Look at the shoulder on the left, for example. It looks more hunched in your coin. The top shoulder line is closer to being parallel to the lines of the galley and when extended left intersects the lettering at a different place. Beautiful coin!

Steve

[Joe Sermarini]

Maybe the same hand.

[Kevin D]

The lower part of the stylis where it meets the upper part, is quite different on your coin compared to the other three. I don't see this as being due to strike or die wear. I think different dies (both obverse and reverse).

[Mark Fox]

Dear Pharsalos, Steve, Joe, Kevin, and Board,

Also, for what it is worth, the Gulbenkian coin and the specimen in Naville X 1925 appear to be one and the same coin.  Keep in mind that the latter picture shows a plaster cast.  Such a medium can mask or create differences, but if one looks closely, I think they will also note faint suggestions of the same imperfections as seen on the actual coin.

Hope this helps.


Best regards,

Mark Fox
Michigan     

[Steve Moulding]

Dear Mark and board. To the best of my knowledge the Gulbenkian collection catalogs list actual provenances.  I have Volume I on my shelf and for the entries I've just checked, so far that is the case. You make good points about the differences between plaster casts and actual coins and this example is a good illustration. Thank you, Mark!

edit: In the introductory "A Note on the Arrangement and Descriptions" they confirm this. The actual provenance is given wherever possible. Where it is unknown, they preface any reference with the word "As". I don't have Volume II, but if it doesn't say "As Naville X, 560" then it is indeed the same coin.

[Pharsalos]

Thank you all for your posts. You’re right Mark, the Gulbenkian coin is indeed the Naville X coin. Steve is also correct, the Naville provenance is noted under the Gulbenkian catalogue image Anaximander posted for me in the linked thread. I missed that.

I appreciate your thoughts on the reverse die. The die has broken under the stylis, but I agree there are other areas that look different. I downloaded a photo overlay app today and played around, it does look like the reverse is a different die.

I’ll keep looking for an obverse or reverse match, and post it on this thread if I ever do come across one.

[Anaximander]

Two reverse dies from the same hand, definitely. 
I only wish we could see the other referenced example; BMC 8 (Central Greece) #24, Plate XXIV #6. It is listed in Gulbenkian as having the same dies.  Neither of my two PDF scans of BMC managed even a grayscale depiction.  Here it is in B&W.

[Steve Moulding]

This example is in the Hunterian collection...different reverse again. 2.78g

Text: https://archive.org/details/cu31924092536642/page/48/mode/1up
Plate: https://archive.org/details/cu31924092536642/page/n670/mode/1up

[Pharsalos]

Steve, you are a living legend! That I think is the obverse die match I have been looking for:

[Mark Fox]

Dear Board,

Glad to have been of some minor help. 

In response to Anaximander's research, here are two marginally better scans of BMC 8 in Plate XXXIV (coin no. 6):

https://books.google.com/books?id=W1tmAAAAMAAJ&pg=PT54#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=fTMGAAAAQAAJ&vq=XXIV&pg=PT54#v=snippet&q=XXIV&f=false

The reverse of the Hunterian specimen that Steve astutely dug up looks rather close to my humble specimen in the following group lot (which I considered to be a bonus coin as I was after the Carystus piece):

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3330050

A larger image of the lot is also attached in this post.

Yes, Pharsalos, I tend to agree with your assessment, especially with the bottom of the neck and the pellets in the sphendone (which possibly illustrate its net-like structure).  I will need to study both images more closely to be sure, however.
 
Interesting discussion, and I really do like the fine style on these early(?) issues! 


Best regards,

Mark Fox
Michigan

"P.S. Edit":  I just noticed Pharsalos's overlay of the obverse...  Very convincing indeed!