Any one know what this coin is? Help Help . Thanks

Hello all.

I am new to this and was hoping someone could help me identify this old coin.
It was my Grandfathers. Looks like some t ype of Roman coin? What would it even be worth. It's about the size of a dime. And feels and looks like silver.
Thanks for any help

gssm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Athenian drachm? cant say if its authentic, or fake (modern, or comtemporary)

 

Thanks for the help. I guess it does kind of look like an owl on one side. How do you know if it is real or fake?
Thanks for all the help. I don't know anything about coins.

 

whats teh weight and diameter

 

The weight I understand but the diameter? Wouldn't that be inconsistent...and I'm not sure that would guarantee authenticity anyway.

 

Weights can vary. Diameters generally remain within a reasonable range.

 

Perhaps an Eastern imitation of an Athenian owl? Perhaps it is ancient but that is not certain to me from the photo.

 

i agree

 

WOW,

I guess I am going to have to research this a bit more. Im not sure if there are any reputable coin dealers in my area. I live in North Central PA. Is there any certified dealers that can look at this coin to let me know. I am interested in finding out for sure if it is real . Or if it is a fake. If it is real silver? Or if maybe it is worth anything.
Thanks guys for all the help.

I have learned alot already.

Gssm

 

Sabaeans and Himyarites of Arabia might be a starting place but I don't know anyone particularly expert in these. The photo is not good enough to be fully diagnostic but my knowledge of this speciality is worse than the photo so even having the coin in my hands would not help a lot. The major dealer that might know is Classical Numismatic Group in Lancaster (not north but at least in PA). Taking the coin to a major show like the one in Baltimore would also be a plan however the photo looks like a coin that has been harshly cleaned which can hide evidence that would confirm or condemn it as being ancient rather than a tourist item. Value depends on it being genuine and on the condition of the surfaces which can not be told from the overexposed and undersized photo.

 

Yes, yes, and yes... If you goto the ANA Website (www.money.org) on the Left under Membership (and also as a popup on the homepage) you will find a link for Dealers. ANA member dealers adhere to a strict code of conduct. You can search by ZIP code.

Also, I have to disagree with Ardatirion: with ancients the weights are more consistent than the diameters. The law said that the moneyer -- elected position every one or two years -- would be given this weight of silver and to make this many thousands of coins from that, which would define the weight per coin. Also, note that for a town with a trading partner on a different standard, they would make their coins some fraction like 5/4 of the other guy's to make it work out. However, the coins were struck hot -- cherry red, we think -- not cold like ours today and the dies had no collars. So, diameters varied.

(Just a quibble, there. Ardie is someone I look to for what I do not know.)

I checked www.coinarchives.com for examples from Sabaea and the Himyarites and wider for "Arabia" (and even Felix as the Romans called this "Felix Arabia") but found nothing close to this example. Still, if genuine, then, indeed, an ancient coin with merits of its own.

 

A perfectly reasonable quibble! I know I'm on the minority side of this. Yes, you are correct that weight standards at the mint were strictly controlled, but that was only for the coins important to the function of the state - the gold and large silver denominations. Weights of bronze and silver fractions fluctuate wildly. Furthermore, the coin had an entire life outside of the mint - it could have been clipped, or lost silver and weight in the ground.

And furthermore, when you look at a coin, do you look at the weight? Or do you look at the overall design and size? Of course you notice the weight if it seems aberrant.

 

Certainly weight standards were important but different cultures followed different rules. In some cases this is shown by each coin being exactly the same as all others but some applied a standard that required a certain number of coins to a weight of metal but some coins might be a bit off the average and be compensated by others being the opposite direction. This is termed al marco as opposed to each coin being exactly the same which is called al peso. Unfortunately few collectors understand the evidences on coins of the importance of such matters. It has been shown that Roman Republican denarii were al marco with sme coins adjusted by gouging the surface even if that particular coin was not particularly overweight. Late Romans valued the metal content of the billon coins to the point that many bore marks attesting to the amount of silver in the alloy (one part to 20 base metal being most common). There are coins marked LXXII which were struck 72 to the pound. The point is: one needs to be aware of the standards employed in a particular time and place since the rules varied across the 2000 years during which coins were made without modern machines.

I, too have to disagree with the statement that diameter was most important but there are a few ancients that were struck with this as a major importance. More often, weight was king but that does not always mean two coins would weigh exactly the same as expected today.

 

Obviously the copper and bronze coinage had a metal value. But, in general, it was not even remotely as closely controlled as the silver and gold coinage. The weights of surviving specimens simply do not agree with your statement.

Dougsmit makes what is probably the most salient point in this whole thread - that most of us just do not adequately understand the use of coins in an ancient context.

And allow me to refine my initial statement a bit more - diameter is the most effective way to differentiate coins within a single denominational system. (is that clearer?)

 

I'd need to study a lot more periods before I could agree with even this and I certainly could come up with examples that did not fit. For example, I have a first century as that is as wide as dupondii of the period but thinner and lighter. The major distinguishing point is often the color of the metal unless that is obscured by patina. Most are separated by other signs as well (radiate crowns, denominational marks etc.) but I'll need examples that show diameter as 'more' important than weight or these other clues. Standards changed often enough that it is not easy to apply hard rules based on any one indicator. This becomes even harder to follow when more than one mint location was in production at a time.

 

From the photo I do not see any marking that would identify it as Himyarite or Sabean. I have a mini collection of these, and I do not see any marks on the cheeks that are usually present. There are many other cultures that imitated Athenian coinage though. My first thought was southern Lebanon area. There were many city states that imitated these.

I agree that if you are in PA then you are lucky as the center of the Ancient coin universe seems to be in Lancaster, PA.

Concerning the argument of size versus weight, how about you both are right? In certain times size is the determinant factor, like Byzantine bronze, where weights are all over the board but size was the indicator of value. However, for precious metal I would agree weight was always the standard on which "heads would roll" if incorrect, but some mints had sloppy quality control in terms of diameter.

Chris

 

In my experince (be it limited) theres always exceptions with ancients, and its good to have more than one feature to go off of, imo.

also, If a coin was a imitation or a contemporary counterfeit it might not necessarily have the same weight, but may have a similar diameter right?

 

But for the OP coin specifically, they weren't counterfeits. They were more properly termed "local issues". The athenian coinage was so massive and well accepted that in many areas of the mideast it effectively was the design of money. Many local cultures minted them locally with the same design, and the local issues usually were fairly regular with the weights, though they may have not been the same weights as the official Athenian issue.