Aegina turtle stater, a redemption coin and a curious theory about their reverse.

When I was new to collecting ancient coins and hadn't yet developed an eye for spotting fakes, I bought a turtle stater (actually a tortoise) from eBay for only $60 from an Eastern European seller, pictured below. At the time, I didn't realise the red flags, the price was too good to be true, and I overlooked the casting bubbles on the sides. It wasn't until I did more research and visited various forums (before I became a member of any major coin forums) that I discovered it was a fake. Fortunately, I was able to get a refund, but the seller didn't even ask for the coin back, just confirming its lack of authenticity.


So, I was left with this counterfeit coin, which filled the gap in my collection for the first European coin for the next 5-6 years. I was being put off by the high prices on these types, even for really worn-out examples. Finally, I managed to find the right piece at the right price, this time, with some provenance to boot.



Aegina Ar Stater
500-490/480 BC
17mm, 11.85g
Obv: Smooth shell sea turtle.
Rev: Proto-skew incuse pattern.
Asyut Group VIc 'late thin collar', cf.533-540, Sear 1857, SNG Delepierre 1681.
Ex Colin E. Pitchfork (bought from his son).
Ex Spinks Numismatic Circular, February 1984.

The coin in its holder with all the original references from Pitchfork. Can anyone fully decipher his handwriting? I've only managed to figure out part of it.



Here's the actual coin next to the fake tortoise, albeit made of silver.


Here’s my theory about the reverse of these coinage. The incuse pattern on the reverse served several purposes: it helped push the metal into the high-relief obverse die, ensuring a full impression, and it provided authenticity, discouraging counterfeiting by making the coin's internal structure visible (though test cuts were still made, and some fourrées with incuses exist). This applies to Aeginitan coins as well, especially the early types that likely copied methods from Asia Minor. However, later on, the incuse design evolved into triangles perfectly divided by lines into five compartments. To me, this seems more like a deliberate design than just a functional incuse punch.

The simplest explanation, in my opinion, is that since the coin depicts a turtle or tortoise on the obverse, the reverse represents the reptile’s underside, the plastron. If you compare the plastrons of species like Testudo graeca, Testudo hermanni, and Chelonia mydas, which are native to the Aegean Sea, you'll notice striking similarities. I believe the 'incuse' is actually a stylistic representation of the plastral scutes, particularly the intergular-gular-humeral scutes or the other end, femoral and anal scutes, depending on which side you look.


Please share your turtles or your redemption coins!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

- that's all I have to say....