Featured Aegina stater

At some point since this thread began I did acquire an Aegina stater . It's not in the same league as the amazing examples shown by AJ and @Skakke but it is not too shabby .


ISLANDS OFF ATTICA, Aegina
456/45-431 BCE
AR stater; 20mm, 12.32 g
Obv: land tortoise, head in profile, with segmented shell
Rev: large square incuse with skew pattern
Ref: SNG Delepierre 1774ff; BMC Taf. 24.11

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Much better. The original photos looked like those from a sketchy eBay listing. I am convinced that this coin is likely not a fake.

 

This is an example of what I posted above (Post#58). Note: I am not making any opinion as to the authenticity of any coin here - only pointing out some of the characteristics I see in the photos.

In the photo below, we see crystallization in the incuse stamping, and inside open spaces on the edge. This characteristic is always a plus on an ancient. So, the large, blocky crystallization we see on this coin is good. When we see a tight, fine crystal pattern in a coin's surface (called "spider-web" by authenticators) it calls for closer scrutiny.







Now let's take this coin. You'll need to go up to Post#59 to enlarge the image. This coin appears to have the blocky crystallization. Upon enlarging the image my eye is drawn to some defects THAT MAY OR MAY NOT be on the actual coin. There is a defect on the upright of the "Gamma" and what looks like several tiny, round pimples on the surface in the upper left quadrant (some must be tiny corrosion spots) and attached to several parts of the relief. There is also what appears to be circular die polish in the lower right quadrant. To the best of my knowledge, this type of die work is not commonly seen on coins of this age.
Additionally, I see three small oval lumps (w/open centers like calamari ) on the right front claw and shell.

These thoughts are similar to the post above by @TypeCoin971793. All unusual characteristics; yet Please remember that at the moment I have no opinion on the authenticity of this coin one way or the other as the coin was closely scrutinized by experts attending the auction.

 

Thank you all for very interesting comments. I was a little reluctant to post the image above due to the fact that the image belongs to the auction house, as I'm not sure if they let the buyer use it post sale. However, I'm very happy to have been able to acquire the coin, and I can assure you it has been subject of a lot of admiration every day. I'm normally not such a high end collector, but I had the opportunity at this moment, and luckily, the perfect coin showed up on auction.

 

"There is also what appears to be circular die polish in the lower right quadrant. To the best of my knowledge, this type of die work is not commonly seen on coins of this age."
Well, looking at the coin under strong magnification, the secular marks appear to some very faint cleaning marks, as they are clearly scratched into the surface.

 

IMO, there's a big difference between "I think that coin might be a fake," "I'm not sure that coin is real," or "I have doubts as to that coin's authenticity," and this:



In any case, I see nothing amiss about any of the coins posted in this thread. Carry on, and post more turtles!

 

They look raised to me and more importantly don't they appear to continue UNDER the design divider. Wouldn't that indicate they were in the die? Only the owner of the coin can say for sure as he has the coin.

 

I would agree they may appear raised on the photo. However, the fact that they are not so is very evident whilst looking at the coin in hand. I'm not sure what you mean by "going under the design devider", as that makes no sense to me. The lines are contained within the triangle and are very thin. There is a light tone on top, indicating they have been present for som time. Perhaps this coin has been in a cabinet for a few years. I'm happy to let anyone whom would like to inspect the coin. The coin is located in Norway.

 

If the lines were to go under the raised horizontal design element, that would indicate they were incuse circular polishing scratches on the top surface of the punch that penetrated deepest into the planchet. Is that more clear?

Since they were on the die and were struck into the planchet, they should have the same surface color as the surrounding incuse field. Scratches after the coin was struck, are shiny - UNTIL they tone down to the color of the coin.

If they are scratches into the coin, fine. If they are raised, that's fine also. Now what I wish to know for my own use is: Has any ancient collector here seen circular die polish on an ancient? Will you post some photos?

 

OK, I see. If I understand you correctly, you say they would polish the entire area on the highest part of the die hence getting lines that would continue from one section to the conjoining section. I can't say that I can see this on the coin. The lines are scratched into the surface, and actually they have a tone that is a tiny bit darker than the rest of the surface. I agree it would be indeed very interesting to see images with examples of the above mentioned die polish.

 

A local jewelry store has a selection of very nice ancient coins set in pendants and rings. The last time I was in they had added a nice poster of ancient Greek coins. Today I browsed the internet to find the poster. Looking at it more closely, the first coin on the poster is AJ's Aegina stater! Not a similar coin, the same coin

http://orbiscoinsandmapsinc.blogspot.com/2016/06/coming-soongorgeous-posters-designed.html

 

Good catch! I reflexively started looking to see if any of them were my coins... silly reflexes .

 

I didn't bother. I wonder what AJ has to say.

 

That is a very cool poster

 

Well I just have a semi-cheap one bought from Stack's NYICS auction, Jan 2016. It's the smooth shelled type, however I'm wondering if I should have held out for an earlier type or an unusual or high grade specimen? This was bought sight unseen as a choice VF with no "eyes on" for the coin.




This piece proved useful despite the lower grade. I was invited to do a presentation on "Ancient Coins" for a high school class that was finishing their semester on Ancient Civilizations in Sao Paulo, Brazil. I thus brought a small collection of Ancients from the US to Brazil for the presentation (last week). Due to possible problems with customs and stuff in general in Brazil, I'd prefer not to transport many super high grade pieces: not that I have those.

Also I have a question? This piece is frequently listed as being struck from 480 - 457 BC. Turtles are said to have been struck from 600 BC (or at least 550 BC) & following and were made in immense quantities. However, the types earlier than this appear very infrequently in auctions and it seems unlikely that the whole population of turtles was made during just a 23 year period as above.

I've seen production estimates of 70,000 turtles/year however, for 23 years this would seem to imply that only 1.4 million pcs were struck (excluding the very rare archaic types). Given attrition & the fact that most people should be happy to trade their turtles in for Athenian tetradrachmas, I'd expect a higher mintage.

 

That is not a lower grade specimen. A little research will show that 90% of them are much worse. Archaic coins over VF with shell details and well struck/centered are not all that easily found but lumps of silver with worn remains of a headless turtle are common. What resource are you using to separate the periods of production?
Want earlier? Compare:
https://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=108179

 

Thanks for your comments on my Agean turtle didrachma. Sorry about the delay in posting but I was resident in Brazil (Sao Paulo) for 3 years and am just now moving back to the US. Details of my “Coins of Ancient Civilizations” talk. The kids were extremely interested as they had just finished a semester on Ancient Civilizations & I had a lot of questions as you can see.



There are no bank safety deposit boxes in Brazil. My turtle was one of the coins I brought to Brazil as it was historic and representative without being super expensive. I didn’t want to tempt fate by writing about it before my coins were safe.

The turtle you linked to is quite interesting; I’ve heard that the completely smooth shelled turtles were the earliest type. Is this the type to which they are referring -or is there another, more common smooth shelled type which came between the CNG coin (2007, lot 504, early class A, ca. 550- 530 BC) and my three pellets type with the collar?

I’m surprised that my type isn’t earlier. I believe the listed dates for the smooth shell with pellets are 475 – 457 BC. It seems that this is a very narrow period for such a prolific and major trade coin? The period extension granted by the early CNG type specimen seems too insignificant given that they’re only two known specimens of this type.

You’ll be happy to know that I did include your coin in my slide on early Greece. I pushed the starting date back based on the CNG turtle didrachma circulating in the mid 6th century BC.



Regarding your question on references: I have nothing specialized for early Greek.

 

Talking about fake turtles / Tortoises , what about this one ? bought it a couple of months ago on eBay

 

I hate to use the "F" word, so I'll just say it doesn't look right to me. A coin with detail like this would cost many thousands of dollars. I don't know what you paid, but if it sounds to good to be true........

 

Did you buy it as a fake? Looks like a match to some in Forvm's Fakes gallery.

Edited: Isn't it the AntiquaNova "museum restrike" but with the "S" mark removed and the obverse I ground off? http://www.antiquanova.com/Aigina-Stater-Greece-404-340-BC-fine-silver-replica-coin-d45.htm