One of the biggest attractions for me of belonging to Coin Talk is that I get the shared knowledge of many experienced coin collectors. Please help me learn a little more. The coin below is listed as a Ptolemy I Soter tetradrachm from Memphis. I see a rose in the left field on the reverse which would indicate to me that the coin is from Rhodes and not Memphis. Also, how would you spot this as a Ptolemy issue rather than an Alexander issue? Any help is appreciated.
The key reference for these coins is Martin Price's book. The American Numismatic Society has a database organized by Price number and it is ideal for your question. Go to http://numismatics.org/pella/ and enter rose in the white box in the upper right corner and click the search icon (a magnifying glass). There will be 76 results. Your coin has ΔΙ under the chair. Just flip through the results looking for a coin with ΔΙ. Yours is on the fourth page. http://numismatics.org/pella/id/price.3970 http://numismatics.org/pella/id/price.3971 At this point I am a bit confused. I had expected your coin to be struck after 323 BC, as Zeus' legs are crossed. I was going to tell you that was the proof. The ANS database says "332 BC - 323 BC". So either the ANS database is wrong, and this is a Ptolemy issue because crossed legs are said to be after Alexander's death. Or you have scored a lifetime issue, issued under Alexander. Anyone with a paper copy of Price to check?
Well, conventional wisdom being what it is and often wrong, this issue is currently ascribed to Ptolemy as Satrap, 323 - 305 BC. The ANS website is not exactly up to date, so...
Thank you. I do see my coin listed on page four in the Price book you mentioned. I just assumed the rose was an indication that Rhodes was the source of the coin. See, I learned something new!
Lots of learning needed, especially with Greeks. My review of said coin would be I would notice a rose, but the coin is of Alex III type. I would therefore know Rhodes coins would not be traditional ones at this time, especially for silver. So I would then go to Alex III references knowing Rhodes may or may not be involved. Very few symbols in Greek coins are monopolized to only one issuer.
The current reference on this coinage is " Coins of the Ptolemaic Empire " by Catharine Lorber. Your coin looks like her reference number 19 and is dated from 322-321 B.C. There has been a great deal of confusion over this issue of coins. When Price wrote his book the conventional wisdom was that Alexander started to mint his coinage immediately after his accession to the throne. His book sparked a great deal of new research on the coinage of Alexander. One now has to refer to a number of works done by people including Troxell and Le Rider. Now it is believed that the "Alexander" coinage did not start until after the Battle of Issus, and even then the changeover was more gradual with many mints not starting until after 325 B.C. Initially it was believed that this group of coins initiated the "crossed legs" style which is why Price placed this issue during Alexander's lifetime, but that honor now goes to the mint of Sidon which has a dated issue which places it in 325 B.C. New works always starts new research . I got one of these coins as well. I personally think they are among the most beautiful of all of the issues struck in the name of Alexander
It can be challenging. At one time I had a good number of lifetime coins of both Philip II and Alexander III. Now I have fewer and a lot more posthumous ones. Like this one a tetradrachm of Alexander III from Arados bought in New York City as my souvenir of my trip to that city. Bought it as a lifetime coin now it is posthumous. But hey I still like it
That is a great coin Terence! Not only is the face highly expressive but the lion's skin looks like an actual lion's skin.
So the fact that the word ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ appears on the reverse makes it a posthumous issue even though the legs on Zeus are parallel. This makes it an early posthumous. Is that right?
Essentially yes. The Basileos issues most likely started in 322 B.C. This is true of the eastern mints. The western mints such as Amphipolis may have started using this title even later. This is due to the re positioning of Troxells Group E and F from lifetime issues to posthumous.
