I have quite alot of admirable coins in my collection. As inherited lots of them was mystery coins and i had to research them. I admire that very feeling of holding theese amazing and many times very old facts of history, in my hand. That makes me research more about what reality this object circulated. I solved alot of strange coins origins, by science 3 coins that had been totally missinterpreted by experts. I could ofcourse reveal them here, but im actually registering to solve my uppermost riddle. I have a coin that i never could find the truth out about. This mystery coin is polished so soft it feels like touching a by centuries watersmoothened stone. Though features are on it still. You will find traces of green colour in the edges of it, making me thing of copper or real old gold, but its not gold, nor copper. Its made of mixed minerals i suspect. Sloppy, not refined metallurgury. Old as history itselfe i think. Ive scanned it in highest resolutions and examined it in all forms of possible methods for finding leads to its origin. I have realized the following is true about this very coin: Heads: A face of a man by the age of 40 perhaps, sideways portraited. He has a beard and i actually think there is no crown nor diadems, or helmets upon his head. His clothing seems to contain sinus shapes, like a furry clothing. Tails: The backside is a great mystery, it reveals primarly an elephant with alot of hair. A mammoth in other terms. Those was extinct in total according to known facts, by the year 2000 before christ. And i seriously doubt the eras before ours had knowledge of archeology, nor care for it. This coin might actually date from 2000 BC and beyond older. The greatest two mammothraces died out what we believe at 10.000 BC, and the last ones, the small mammoths, at 2000 BC, according to finds in Siberia. Facts we know: The oldest coin today is dated about 610-650 BC. Greek Globus of electrum. Is this coin way older? I dont think its possible to date it after the late mineral gold era and the greek/iranian settlers of the Krim/South Ukraine. This one creation gotto be as old as refining itselfe, but as trade turned effective using values earned your efforts, the currency. Toss me some ideas or leads i can work on, or do you know more? Post me some responces please.
It's an issue of Ptolemy II, the Hellenic ruler of Egypt, 285-246 B.C.E. The link shows one in better condition. What you think is a mammoth is actually the bottom of the body of an eagle: see the picture. You're right about the content: the copper of these issues is very impure, and they tend to contain various other metals. This has led to a reddish patina on some worn issues. There was not the technology to strike coins so early in man's history. Even in the beginning of the Iron age, coinage was primarily restricted to gold and silver. The concept of a two-sided, copper coin arising before the year 500 B.C.E is almost ridiculous. The reason why the coin is so smooth is that it had at least 100 years of constant circulation, and maybe considerably more. My advice is: don't read too much into slugs. http://www.vcoins.com/guyclark/store/viewItem.asp?idProduct=149
Oh no its not the same coin, trust me. This is far from it. Check for instance the baremeters of the circle, and the mineral of the coin, then the motive upon them, not close at all too bad. Thanks i was glad though i thought you almost solved it, but its no way nere that coin. The search goes on
Ptolemy II or another similar Ptolemaic Egyptian king. For precise attribution, we need the weight in grams and diameter in millimeters.
No i think its far from this era and ruler. The perfection of the coins you show dont match the one i posess, nor does any detail, especially the mineral. The coins you displayed shows an advanced coinknowledge, perfect dimensions, other materials, not really similar motives, and im sure not the same cointhickness. This coin im trying to understand has a thickness of 6-7 mm. I have been seeking a place that can C14 date it, that would show more facts. Havent found a place for that so far though. This is not of that ruler, it think we need to look on other empires for a better match. Unless likely few hundred years before the ones you shown me. This coin is a clumsy creation, thick, not evenly round, but not oval nor square. Sloppy print. If you would touch it in your hand you would think of stone, polished stone. So it has to have been in shallow vibrant water for a long long time, like a beach. But unseen till modern time. Dont have to be an old coin, but it can also be the worls oldest one. And the only thing i say this for is the motive of the mammoth. It really is a mammoth, i have analyzed it in over ten ways, i see its true structure and aswell you do if you see it for real. But who would know of the mammoths, and was they around way longer than said today, thats a clue perhaps to seek in historical documents.
The links were showing unusually good examples. Not only are most more poorly preserved, but they were often oblong and struck off center. For example, take a look at this Roman Dupondius from my collection. It's newer than your coin by a few centuries, but you'll notice that it's similarly oblong and rather crude by modern standards. The quality of your coin is quite consistent with known ancient coinage. As for the "mineral," what you're talking about is the patina. Quite simply, over the centuries and millenia, the outer layer of coins oxidizes and merges with the surrounding minerals. You'll see that the coin I linked above is also rather greenish, and I have a few Byzantine coins from my collection that have green, gem like patinas like your coin, but I haven't scanned them yet. You can in fact find coins that come in all sorts of weird colors and textures due to patination. If you want to convince us that this coin is entirely mineral based, you're going to have to show that it does not have a metal core and that it's even possible to strike a mineral like you can a metal. They don't really show any more advanced knowledge than I can see. Your coin is just more worn. And if they are more circular, then it's just because these are unusually good examples, and yours is more run of the mill. Ancient coins were more often shaped like yours than the ones linked earlier. Yes, they have different patinas. If you removed the patina (NOT recommended, as it will destroy the value of the coin, both monetarily and aesthetically), you will find that what's underneath is copper, brass, or something like that. It really looks like a rather standard, low grade Ptolemaic coin. I'm not sure what you're talking about here. No, Ptolemaic bronze coins were often huge in all dimensions. This is pretty normal. Carbon dating isn't going to help, since that can only date things that were once alive, and nothing in this coin was. You would need a different radiometric dating method, and you would need to go to the metal core. I recommend against doing this, as it's going to be very expensive, and your coin really appears to be a rather run of the mill, low grade Ptolemaic coin worth maybe $20. Why? It looks very Ptolemaic, particularly the style fo the eagle on the back. You haven't given us anything that indicates that it's anything unusual. Which were pretty common back then, and if anything, this means that it would be a later coin, as Ptolemaic coinage quality deteriorated over time. Yes, and I have some Roman and Byzantine coins that are the same (like this one), but they are in fact just bronze coins that have attained a rather nice patina due to the conditions of their preservation. This is in fact quite normal for known ancient coinage, and it's actually an indication that it's copper based. I'm not sure what conditions lead to what sort of patina, but this is perfectly consistent with how known coins patinate. Except everything indicates that it's a rather run of the mill Ptolemaic coin. I'll look later to find some more worn Ptolemaic coins. What's on that coin is quite clearly a rather standard eagle. The eagle was the symbol of Alexandria, and they often depicted the feathers so that they looked like fur when the coin was worn. I can even see the eagle's beak. Except that it's an eagle. I attatched an image below showing something closer to what is actually there (I did this with a touchpad, and it's hard to make out a lot of what's on your worn coin, but the eagle head and beak should be pretty easy to see once I point them out).
I believe that IS the worlds oldest coin and I am prepared to pay you very handsomely for it as I am a billionaire playboy philanthropist and collector of the finest genuine antiquities. Question, would you be prepared to issue a certificate of authenticity?
6-7 mm is a pretty normal for the AE issues of Ptolemy II. Furthermore, you can't carbon-14 date coins.
