Here is a coin I bought a little while back. It's my oldest, and also happens to be my wife's favorite. Now the seller from whom I purchased it said that it was from the time of Darius I to Xerxes I (505 to 480 BC.) I tried to do a little research on my own, and according to CoinProject it appears to be a Carradice Type III, which they list as being used from Darius all the way to Artaxerxes III. Is there any way to know more about exactly when this coin was made? Is there a way to tell an early type III from a later? I know this coin is pretty worn so that might make it more difficult. I believe the seller is trustworthy, but I am curious to know how they were able to narrow it down like that. Thanks all!
Here is some helpful information... have fun!... https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=siglos
Perfect! Thanks! So it looks like mine is a Type IIIa, 490 - 475 BC. Coming in at the tail end of Darius I's rule and the beginning of Xerxes I.
ACHAEMENID EMPIRE AR Siglos OBVERSE: Persian king or hero in kneeling/running stance right, holding spear and bow REVERSE: Incuse punch Struck at Persia, 485-420 BC 5.5g, 16mm Carradice Type IIIb, Group A/B (pl. XII, 18)
Nice coins @GinoLR and @Bing ! One thing I like about these sigloi is that they're small but thick. It's a nice little chunk of silver.
Students of the series can use clues that place various issues in some sort of order but I have seen no evidence that the changes were in any way associated with the current king. We can assume that the types may have changed with king A was replaced by king B but that is not factual. Other than style, they consider hoard evidence (groups found with no coins of one type are assumed to be buried before that later type was issued but are all the changes related to date or are some evidence of multiple mints?). They also consider silver content which is usually thought to mean earlier coins are higher grade silver. Could this also be an assumption that could add confusion? All studies like this require balancing all the evidence and making the best guess we can. My level of interest in the coins allows me to want one of each of the four types (I do not have the first) but I have not bothered labelling them IIIa or IIIb, for example. I do have an opinion on what makes a good coin. I strongly prefer coins that have a bow to have that bow on the flan while those with a knife need to show that knife. This outranks lack of wear by a great deal IMO but many disagree with that. Type II - the bow is being drawn - Better coins have crown, arrowhead, quiver and feet. I would not mind a coin with less wear but centering is prime for type II. Type III is distinguished by the spear which is never off flan but my example is defective lacking the crown. The wear does not bother me but the crown does. Type IV has a dagger which I want on flan. It would be nice if a coin had crown, feet and bow as well but the dagger is what defines the type. My last coin below points out another situation to watch for. These coins are known to exist as silver plated over copper core fourrees. Such coins should sell for less. This type III is decently centered but shows copper core exposure in several places. I paid about 1/3 the price of the other type III above because I wanted a fourree example for my fourree collection. Does that seem about right???
