Don't know how I missed this earlier. I stumbled across this while checking the 'earthen patina' on my new arrival......a bronze. Bronzes always require scrutiny. here you go earlier auction I bought it for $85. I would love opinions before I post my thoughts. Here are some photos I took of the surface on the obv.
My thought: Lots of ancient coins come with gunk on them. This one is not unusual in that regard. Some members with steady hands (not me) might try to clean it mechanically. Thought 2: It is worth your $85.
The gunk looks like earth deposits and look original. Certainly far more authentic looking than the orange sand patina. The price...well, it's not a concern for me because I bought it real cheap (less than a good dinner for one) I am wondering why the same coin has two diff grades, estimates and why the downward direction. Same coin, nothing has changed. Both CNG.
Was an attempt at cleaning made or is the difference just the photo? We talk a lot about removing fake sand patinas but how much abuse is a genuine surface likely to endure before it convinces someone that it is not easily soluble? Grades change with standards over time and it is unlikely that the same eyes graded the coin both times. I'd be more worried that the coin gained .06g over time but I doubt the scales accuracy and calibration were the same both times either. It is possible to add .06g worth of RenWax etc. as well. Did CNG change cameras, scales, employees or all of those between sale 97 and 398? Opinion: Good Fine is high enough.
I see a correlation here: when the coin's estimate was $200, its condition was a VF; when its estimate was reduced to $100, its condition was also reduced to Good Fine.
I was just notified on another board that the descriptions that were used (and are traditionally used) have been challenged by Spengler and Sayles back in 1992. They propose that it is actually the astrological symbol of Mars All I could find was this. I find it interesting to see how coin interpretations can change (back and forth)
Also all these images of Mars in a constellation (represented by the zodiac symbol below the figure) This one is Mars in the constellation Perseus Mars in Scorpio Based on all this evidence, I think the descriptions need to be amended to read, Representation of Mars in contemporary regional garb, or something of the sort. Any dealers or such that want to chime in as to why this has been ignored as a representation of Mars?
I'm convinced. Seems like a pretty clear case though I'd be interested to read Edham's full analysis.
Not a dealer here, but this type was briefly discussed in another thread recently: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/magnificent-and-not-so-magnificent-mars.297570/page-2#post-2760664 In at least one of their auction descriptions, CNG has also mentioned the Mars link: https://cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=93944 Interestingly, in this listing, Sayles seems to have ignored his own description of the type: https://www.vcoins.com/en/stores/wa..._husam_aldin_yuluq_arslan/631096/Default.aspx
Ironically, it was Victor Clark who tipped me off on the other site. Thanks for finding this. I did not see that other CNG attribution. It should be moved up into the main body of the description IMO. Thanks
The difference is solely in the photo. CNG uses slightly different post-processing for printed vs electronic auctions. Its difficult to balance the print color on gold, silver, and various colors of bronze, all on the same page. I'm not really knowledgeable enough to speak more on it. Actually, I am the one who took the coin for consignment to 398. The collector failed to include the provenance and, especially for a lower-value coin like this that I am reasonably familiar with, I usually don't search every sale record. IMO, the coin was a little overgraded in the printed sale. It also had a decent pedigree attached, which together probably tried to justify the $200 estimate, which was obviously too high. As for the scales, a .06 difference is absolutely normal. It makes it a bit frustrating to catalog the hemitetartemoria sometimes!
That all makes perfect sense. I did not think it was worth it (the $200 estimate...edited for clarity). $85 was my high bid. What are your thoughts on the subject actually being Mars in the garb of the region? Or the thougths of anyone else at CNG...? I just want to get a correct description. Somebody cited at CNG cited it once (per zumbly above.) I saw that coin but passed over it based on condition vs price. At the time I didn't know that Sayles had this theory. That IS interesting. smh
I will check this afternoon if I get the opportunity, but the relevant monograph is Whelan, The Public Figure: Political Iconography in Medieval Mesopotamia. I believe we generally go with the interpretations in there, rather than S&S.
I see what you mean. I found this on CNG 97 From the Warden Family Collection. INTRODUCTION TO THE WARDEN FAMILY COLLECTION Classical Numismatic Group is pleased to offer the Warden Family Collection of Turkoman figural bronze coins struck by the Artuqid, Zangid, Ayyubid, and Danishmendid dynasties. The present sale offers 78 coins, with the remaining 27 being run concurrently in CNG Electronic Auction 335. A familiar and well-respected name in the numismatic community for almost a half century, the Wardens have devoted themselves to the coinage of Central Asia, from the beginning of coinage in the region up through the Islamic period. This collection consists of most of the major S&S types of Artuqid and Zangid bronze dirhems, as well as a couple of Danishmendid and Ayyubid types, including a dirhem of al-Nasir I Salah al-Din Yusuf (Saladin). This collection offers a special opportunity for the beginning, intermediate, or specialized collector of Turkoman figural coinage to add to their collection by acquiring attractive and rare coins brought together by one of the most important and esteemed numismatic families in this field. Although Islamic tradition (hadith) prohibits the depiction of humans or animals, it was not always strictly enforced. One such instance of this was the coinage of the Turkoman dynasties – the Artuqids, Zangids, and Danishmendids, as well as the Ayyubids – which included a variety of human and animal figural types on their bronze dirhems. Initially nomads, these groups, once they settled in the regions of Mesopotamia (al-Jazira) and Anatolia and established dynasties there, recognized the need to establish political legitimacy over the areas they now ruled. These territories had been governed by a variety of earlier empires (Greek, Roman, Byzantine, and Sasanian), and consisted of various Christian and Arabic groups, all of whom had long exposure to coinage as a medium for expressing political legitimacy. Respecting western culture, these Turkoman rulers also admired and appreciated western art (S&S p. xvii) and were open to accepting certain religious tenets and iconography within Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which provided models for some of the Byzantine-inspired coin types. Concurrently, a neo-classical revival was under way in the region of the al-Jazira. Greek and Roman coins that existed as parts of then-available collections or individual examples provided the models for other coin types. These new coin types did not simply copy their ancient prototypes, but through an historical understanding of their motifs, they combine ancient and more contemporary iconography, or in turn classicize contemporary iconography, causing the viewer assume a connection to classical prototype which does not actually exist. The presence of so many different coin types might suggest a broad logical pattern to their usage, something that often fails when consideration is based on the types themselves. With so many different coin types in the series, it would seem impossible to find a logical pattern, However, when one considers that the origins of these dynasties were on the Central Asian steppes, where the heavens were fundamental for negotiating their day-to-day existence, these coin types demonstrate a marked astroligical influence in their designs, something that makes them unique to their Turkoman issuers.
