Hello everyone! My name is Timur. I am new to this forum and I am a newbie to numismatics, so I am pretty happy to become a member of this community As my first question I wanted to ask for help regarding the three coins I have attached. The overall question is - are they authentic by the looks? The first one I couldn't identify at all. I looked through every catalog online and hardcopy I have - couldn't identify it's mint. It's 26.7mm and 17.1 gr The second one - I think it's 336-323 BC AR Tetradrachm with thunderbolt in left field, DI beneath chair, but not sure. It's 26mm and 16.98 gr And the third one I was able to identify as Mesembria mint. Struck 250-175 BC. It looks authentic to me, but I really need a professional point of view. It's 28mm and 16.49 gr Thanks a lot in advance, Timur.
Merely by a glance, they may be genuine but that is just an initial impression and not any concrete opinion on authenticity .... I have to ask: How did you come across each one? Did you purchase them, hoping to or were they gifts?? It seems that your posts also display examples that are 'lifetime' issues (as I am slowly comprehending that specific distinction), thus, they are prime candidates for counterfeiters and I'll have to defer to those far more knowledgable than I am. As @Pishpash states, be patient, others will chime in shortly and offer the more precise information you desire. And WELCOME!!! BTW: this link may be of some interest as well: http://rg.ancients.info/alexander/tets.html
If I may, I'd like to recommend the Alexander III section at www.coinproject.com . This site has been under construction for a decade and will take years more to complete, but among those portions which are already realizing the creators' dreams, the website has the widest assortment of Alexander III coins - 95+% of what's in Price, plus dozens which aren't in Price - anywhere on the web. It's all free with no paywalls whatsoever - but donations are certainly welcome. An appointed moderator is responsible for the accuracy of content in each specific section, but moderators to cover some areas are still needed. So, if you're somewhat of a specialist, your expertise could be of help if it's an area which does not yet have a dedicated moderator - or one in which the existing moderator(s) might need additional help.
The problem is that most counterfeiters choose Alexander the Great in their wicked work because it's number one in demand for most collectors and amateurs of ancient coins.
I agree 100% with @Mikey Zee's assessment. Nothing is throwing any red flags for me, but these lifetime coins are the most in-demand, hence likely targets for counterfeiting. I would get a copy of Price or consult an expert on these.
Hmm, now I'm confused again, despite my attempts to understand the link I provided in my post in this regard. I believe you feel they are posthumous because of the 'Zeus crossed leg' criteria (right leg drawn behind left leg pose) and the use of the title Basileus?? That certainly accounts for number three but I'm still confused as to the status of the first two. Are they also considered posthumous, despite lacking the Basileus title, because they also seem to be of the 'crossed leg' variety or a combination of other things?
Mikey - Unfortunately, it's not so simple as telling that a Lincoln cent is pre- or post-1958 by checking the reverse. The Alexander types were eventually struck at literally scores - possibly hundreds - of mints. Many of them in places where the locals probably would, if not necessarily have killed you for saying it, at least have been very insulted and angered had you called them "Greek". Greek culture had very little of anything like a universal cultural identity - unlike Roman culture. Greek city-states were constantly at each others throats. It wasn't until Philip's and Alexander's time that some form of unification even occurred to them, beyond trying to recruit a neighbor to help fight the group over the hill in the next valley. They were not all cooperating together to turn out a homogeneous product. Some copied the others carefully for various reasons which were mostly economic/trade based. Others had their reasons for divergences from the otherwise universally recognizable product. Some were even struck on different weight standards, among other variations. We are seeing these things from a viewpoint in which almost nothing we touch or see is unique. One-offs, when they occur, are something special and unusual. You must remember that there was virtually no continuity of stereotypy in everyday objects in the late 1st millennium BC. Once a mold or set of dies broke - and these were about the only way that anything approaching exact copies could be made - there would never again be objects exactly like those produced from them. The dating of the various types, like their attribution to specific mint-cities, was accomplished by logical deductive means using things like statistics generated from carefully recorded hoard evidence and findspots. All of this is really a "best guess" scenario, since there are no primary source historical documents to consult on minutiae like the exact details of one issue or another. The coins themselves must stand as their own documentation. Opinions about dates and origins are liable to change on the basis of a new hoard find - or a new interpretation of existing data - at any time.
