One of the coins I bought recently was attributed as "Epeirote Republic, ca. 148 - 50 BC, SNG Copenhagen 128, laureate head of Zeus r. / Thunderbolt and ethnic within wreath". No doubt, I strongly believed, that this was the correct attribution. The seller who is very knowledgeable and whom I respect very much couldn't be wrong. So I spend several hours and days looking for all the SNG Copenhagen 128 in catalogues and resources on the web with no success. Quite disappointed, I decided to look only for Epeiros, Zeus and Thunderbolt and problem solved. It turned out that the attribution is SNG Copenhagen 102, on the reverse the ethnic is the monogram of Pyrrhos and there is also the letter "B" The Kingdom of Epirus was involved in the Wars of the Diadochi and temporarily abandoned any ambition of expansion in Italy. This changed in 295 BC with the rise to the Epirote throne of Pyrrhus, who had great political ambitions. The Kingdom of Epirus was the first Hellenistic state to fight against the Romans in battle. Pyrrhus was decisively defeated at the Battle of Beneventum (275 BC). Having lost the majority of his army, he returned to Epirus, which finally resulted in the loss of all his Italian holdings. Because of his costly victories, the term "Pyrrhic victory" is often used for a victory with devastating cost to the victor. Pyrrhus was known for his benevolence. Pyrrhus's greatest political weaknesses were his failure to maintain focus and a strong treasury at home, as many of his soldiers were mercenaries. After Pyrrhus’ death in 272 BC, Epirus became a minor power, first under his descendants and then as a republic. Æ 19, Kingdom of Epiros, Epeiros, ca. 297 - 272 BC 5.73 g Price 1387; HGC 3, 271; SNG Copenhagen 102; BMC 44; Hoover HGC 271; SNG Evelpidis 1865 Ob.: Head of Zeus Dodonaios l., wreathed with oak. Rev.: Thunderbolt, B above, ΠYΡ (monogram of Pyrrhos) below, all within oak wreath. This example at wildwinds was the one that gave me the right attribution. Thank you wildwinds for all your great work! https://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/epeiros/kings/pyrrhos/BMC_44.jpg Please share your coins that were wrongly attributed by a seller and your correct attribution or anything you think is relevant.
You highlight an all-too-common issue of the internet age. Too many rely on auction sites and Wildwinds for citations. Without the relevant SNG Copenhagen volume in hand, how can one know what differentiates #102 from #128? Is each number a different type? Does the collection include dozens of examples of the type beginning with #102 but #128 is a die match? Does the number of oak leaves vary? Does the weight vary? The internet should not be an excuse for not building a library. It's crucial to cite reference numbers from the source, not second- or third-hand. For those on a budget, many of the classic references are out of copyright and readily available for use or download at archive sites like books.google.com, archive.org and hathitrust.org. As an example, all but one or two of the 29 volumes of BMC Greek are available as free and legal pdf downloads. I just checked the 'Numismatic Literature' folder on my laptop. As of today, it holds 3,224 books and articles. Here is the listing for your coin from A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum. Volume VII. Thessaly to Aetolia (1883, p. 114):
@dltsrq Thank you so much for the listing from the BM catalogue. Yes, I do have bookmarked references and have downloaded a lot of classic references from the internet. My "mistake" was to take the seller's attribution for granted. As humans as we all are, we make mistakes.
I bought this Victoriatus from Ken Dorney, who attributed it as a Crawford 53/1 struck at the Rome mint. When I posted this coin on Reddit, @red_spork offered a differing opinion in which he identified my Victoriatus as a Crawford 70/1 struck by a mint in Sicily. He described my example as a variety in which Victory wears a “double skirt.” https://www.reddit.com/r/AncientCoins/comments/ncg076/comment/gy4zro7?st=L411MBSS&sh=fbd3a84d
One of the more egregious areas where sellers and auction houses mis identify coins has to be the "Starr Group" and Mass Coinage 454-404 BC series from the mint of Athens. I have been lucky enough not to have been victimized by this phenomenon however as late as yesterday evening I saw at least one Athenian owl masquerading as another. This guy is probably the closest I have come to being led astray . Athens Tetradrachm Minted circa 450 BC Obv. Helmeted head of Athena right. Rv Owl walking right head facing. Flament Group I (Late) 17.22 grms 23 mm Photo by W Hansen Some years ago I had purchased two coins from the Mass Coinage series. These I had identified as a Flament Group I and III respectively. I thought it would be a good idea to get a specimen from the Group II period. The Auction House in this case Roma did identify this coin as part of the Mass Coinage, it was me that thought it was a Group II. It isn't. It turned out to be a late Group I. Later I did get a Group II but not before purchasing yet another coin that wasn't
I sometimes buy from an auction house that makes some silly errors. They attribute coins with plenty of details ... but for some reason they are often close but ... wrong. Here are 2 examples from the same auction. Original description Caracalla (as Caesar, 196-198) AR denarius. Rome M AVR ANTON CAES PONTIF - bareheaded and draped bust right Rev: DESTINATO IMPERAT - Implements of the priesthood: lituus, apex, bucranium, and simpulum. RIC IV.1 6 note. RSC 53. 2,96 gr, 18 mm ...Bucranium? where? Obviously they had this coin in mind But the difference is not exactly subtle. Another example, from the same auction, where I wasn't careful to doublecheck their attribution. Description Geta 198-212 AD, as Caesar, AR Denarius, Rome Mint, ca. 200-202 AD. Obv: P SEPT GETA CAES PONT, bare, draped and cuirassed bust of Geta, seen from behind, right Rev: PRINC IVVENTVTIS, Geta in military dress standing left, holding baton and sceptre, to the right trophy RIC IV 18 C 3.01 gr. 18 mm Actually ... checking the obverse legend (pointed by a CT member), it is a Caracalla M AVR ANTON CAES PONTIF with similar reverse. And I wasn't happy because I wanted a Geta coin. My fault also as I should have doublechecked. This is when I started to attribute coins myself as even if I do not have access to many physical references, I like checking on multiple websites to have the coin correctly attributed.
Even very knowledgeable and reputable sellers sometimes misattribute coins. It's actually a wonderful thing that can work to the buyers advantage. Spotting misattributed coins is not only fun, but it keeps you sharp. It can also (on occasion) be a free source of comedic entertainment!
I'm a just a novice collector but sometimes even I can find obvious errors. This coin was purchased from a large VCoins seller that I assume processes so many coins that they don't spend too much time on the inexpensive material. Here is the supplied attribution: Constantius I (Caesar, 293-305). Æ Follis (29mm, 10.52g, 12h). Heraclea, 296-7. Laureate head r. R/ Genius standing l., holding patera and cornucopia; HTΓ. RIC VI 20a. VF Even I could see that this was a coin of Constantius I as Augustus.. which are harder to come by and would cost a little more.
Now that I think of it I did buy a coin that the vendor had badly misidentified. Ar Quarter Shekel 221-209 BC Obv Head ob beardless Herakles left laureate club behind Rv Elephant advancing right. MHC 47 1.65 grms 14 mm Photo by W. Hansen Back in 1996 I was looking through an auction which came early enough for me to actually study the coins with some care. Almost immediately I saw this coin which was described as being minted by some obscure Numidian king. I recognized it as a QuarterShekel minted at Carthago Nova at the time that Hannibal controlled Spain. In some enthusiastic sources the image on the obverse is said to have the "features of Hannibal" I cannot say as to where the German firm got the attribution they used however Sear GCV has been out for a number of year by that time. Needless to say I went after the coin and won it. Even though I really hate preaching, I should add that I discovered this error because I owned a copy of Sear GCV. I believe that everyone contemplating getting into and staying in this hobby should spend some effort creating a working library. My books have added value to my collection. With them I get to avoid and/or profit from the mistakes of others. So ended the sermon.
@Terence Cheesman That's a serious score! That does look like Hannibal, or one of his family members, to me. Wonderful coin.
Attributions of early anonymous Roman Republican issues are frequently wrong, even by very reputable dealers as suggested by Mr.MonkeySwag96 and his Cr. 70/1. This can be a big benefit for a specialist in the early denarii of the Roman Republic like me who put value on rare varieties. Here are a couple of examples: Crawford 46/1 offered by a reputable Spanish auction house as the very common Cr. 44/5. On the top of my want list for several years, I got this for a song. There are about 40 known specimens including those in museums, but for evidence of this you'll need to search beyond ACSearch "Crawford 46/1" as only 3 correctly attributed examples will be found. Roma Numismatics Esale 44 lot 501 as Crawford 53/2. Excessively rare variety not cited in Crawford. 3 known specimens. Undoubtedly of Sicilian style represented by Cr. 72 - 78. Unlike any other fully anonymous types with peaked visor. but closest in style to the rare Cr. 77/1 crooked staff and corn ear variation shown below suggesting that this is the un-marked version of that issue (the coin below is not mine):
here's one I just bought...anyone know why? "Nummus Not Applicable Trier Coin, Constantine I, Trier, Copper VF(20-25)"
