After receiving Chester Starr's book on Athenian coinage, I started going through the owls, and came across another coin that I think falls into a Starr group, but I am having difficulty matching it with the photos. Perhaps I am now legally blind, but I have a lot of difficulty distinguishing the features that differentiate one coin within a group, or even across one group, say from III to IV. The differences in many cases seem very nuanced. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks So, here is the Starr Group IV owl that I posted a few days, and with the kind help of CT members, assigned it to this group. I believe, in the Starr scheme of things, is closest to # 136, Group IV: Here is the other owl, also slabbed and purchased from the same seller who sold the above owl. Would this example be classified as being in Group III, # 97?
I don't know the difference between Starr III and IV. However, these 2 owls are cool examples of early transitional.
Thank you. Perhaps it not terribly important to attribute to a Starr group. I've just been looking at similar coins through CoinArchives.com, and it seems that auction houses attribute to Group IV or to Group III or to Group V in what, at least for me, is somewhat mystifying. Also, the photos in the Starr book, published first in 1970 are often dark and grainy, so, I think it is time to just kick back and enjoy coins!
Except for gross differences eg Archaic , frontal eye changes, introduction of moon and sprigs, is their any real evidence that these Starr groups like 3, 4 or 5 etc have any real chronological validity? Are they not individual die artist's whimsy? Here today gone tomorrow? Is their any reliable hoard evidence? What of the more interesting and very rare Heterogeneous Old Styles?
I agree - the later profile eye and rare heterogeneous styles are often overlooked by collectors in favor of the archaic styles. I think this is in part: 1) people associate the archaic style with Athens' golden age on the 5th century BC; and 2) the later owls are cruder and struck on usually thick "dumpy" flans, although, from time to time a really nicely struck and attractive coin does show up on the market. For those who "march to their own drummer", the owls of the 4th-3rd centuries offer better value and they have an appeal all their own.
Of what I have read that the later dumpy flans were caused during a major re-striking of the quotidian banal mass classic owls. This seems to have consisting of heating them, smashing them and then folding them into smaller-often log-shaped-flans and then re-struck. Maybe they couldn't stand the mass classic Old Style. What a seemingly pointless waste of effort? Ideas?
I can only speculate that heating, folding and restriking was an expedient measure to speed up the minting process. Why they would do this to existing owls is a good question. Perhaps the mint was under orders to take coins of old designs, go through this process, to produce the new owls. I think there was also an issue that the silver mines of Laurion were starting to play out, so the recycling program began in the 4th century BC.
Maybe there was an edict that Mass classic owls could not accepted at full value and must be re-coined to be tariffied again at full value. Since the weight of silver was the same per coin I guess you had to pay a fee for the large cost of the re-minting and a bit more which went into Athen's coffers. This is the only reason I can think of that makes sense, so it is a form of enforcing taxation-the need of which often is due to losing a war-Pellopenisian? And why not change the design a bit with Athena looking away from you?
This is a very belated contribution, but the first owl you posted is a IV, the second is a III. Some of the differences include the length of the sidelock next to Athena's ear, the positioning of the palmette on the helmet, but most helpful is the size and shape of the owl. On IIIs they tend to be more diminutive and upright; on IVs, more linear and diagonal (and on Vs they get "fluffier" or fatter and approach a level of artistry that is only surpassed by some of the transitionals between V and Mid-mass.)
Sorry for the Very late response. The Starr groups are based on stylistic changes, a kind of tweaking of the basic design over the course of four decades or so. The stylistic distinctions do have historical context, at least in that the tetradrachms of, say, Starr Group II are contemporaneous with the decadrachms of the 470s as well as notable works. Here's an excerpt from his book on dating the group II owls, which should give you an idea of how these owls in general were dated. "Once a new design or technique had been introduced into any of the Greek arts, the exploration of its possibilities proceeded commonly with an almost inexorable logic; but this refinement and stylization required a certain period of time and usually be followed through distinct stages. Group II.A which is transitional between Group I and Group II.B, exhibits such extensive changes that one cannot visualize their introduction in the next week, month, or even year after the inception of Group I. If Group I falls across the mid-470s, then Group II.A must be placed towards the end of the decade, thought the number of dies is too small to suggest a very lengthy period. This chronological position is much reinforced by the evidence of the white-figured lekythoi by the Bowdoin painter which were noticed under Group I. In these three vases Athena bears not only five leaves on her helmet, but also a spiral decoration which comes up the back of the helmet and breaks without any curl into a palmette, well above leaves.... This design can most easily be paralleled in the issues of Group II.A. The Spencer-Churchill vase has been placed c. 470, a date which would harmonize admirably the period suggested above for Group II.A; but, as was also observed at that point, it would be unsafe to press the evidence of one vase very far chronologically. At the least, however, the late 470s seem the most suitable point for Group II.A." As for the heterogeneous old style owls, they are, of course beyond the scope of Starr's work, but the same approach to dating them towards the later period of the 4th century intermediate owls appears to be primarily based on style, especially regarding the pi or palmette on Athena's helmet. Folded flans are yet another criterion to put these coins in a chronological order, although not all intermediate owls possess this trait. Some heterogeneous also have design elements on the reverse that makes them very distinctive, as noted by Reid Goldsborough, in his very informative page on Athenian owls: http://rg.ancients.info/owls/ I am not entirely convinced that these very rare owls are Athenian in origin. Other mints in the east were producing imitations of classical and intermediate owls for over a hundred years, from the 5th to the late 4th and even 3'rd centuries. Many were made in a manner to make them difficult to distinguish from Athenian coins, but others did evolve to more localized weights and designs which generally followed the originals, but on a much cruder level. Additionally some of these owls had designs and characters of local origin added to the die, sometimes on the reverse, but more commonly on the obverse. Is it possible that these heterogeneous owls, with their added reverse designs, be of eastern origin? I think it is a possibility, but going about to prove this is a challenge. Here's an intermediate owl of mine that I think is a heterogeneous type, incorporating what appear to be vines and leaves on the reverse, starting at the bottom right, curling up behind the owl, ending in the upper left, near the olive leaves. On the other hand the lines and "leaves" might be die breaks. And two other heterogeneous owls without any added elements, but a very distinct styles, to say the least! My understanding is that the recycling of older coins by the "folding" method was an expedient, due to production needs. This method eliminates the need to melt the coins and create new flans. I suppose that if one was very adroit in this process, new coins could be produced rather rapidly.