Ha I spotted this coin described as a rare Sassanid Dirham of an unknown king, and how I always wanted one of those. Having developed a fondness for Sassanid Persia and recognizing the dealers expertise in the coins, I felt confident in the purchase. I am not an expert but I am also not a ...noob... All I can say is that this coin is NOT a Sassanid Dirham...but I am ok with that... Parthia, Mithradates I (177-138/2BC) AR Drachm 20 mm x 3.79 grams Nisa Mint? Obverse: Beardless bust left wearing bashlyk. Reverse: Bearless archer wearing a cloak seated on am omphalos right holding a bow in his right hand Greek Legend- BASILEWS MEGALOY ARSAKOY ref; Sellwood 10.4 ; Shore 16. I am unsure of the exact reference. I read there should be a Seleucid date in exergue on the reverse, this might be worn/ off flan or non existent. (OP, 143/2 BC) Looks very similar to Sellwood 10.4. So if any experts want to step up and school me on this haha...Sassanid...haha... I would much appreciate it.
That reminds me, yesterday while scouring upcoming auctions I saw something I thought you must buy. Dang if I remember what it was. Hope I bookmarked it, I wanted to show it to you.
Ooow, sweet => cool new coin, Knob ... curious, how many of these babies do you have? => man, I like you ... and I love checkin'-out your new Noobish stuff!! You have certainly have developed yourself a "Noobish-style" ... Oh, and it's a very cool style (congrats!!)
I'm looking for a bookmark now. Ye gads, I've accumulated so many! Time to sort and organize them. If I remember what it was or find the bookmark, I'll PM you.
I am not sure if this is a mithradates or phriapatus-mithradates. They have some new attributions for these. Much scarcer than most sassanids of course. I love the bashlik issues. Unfortunately i only own one, and not as nice as yours.
I read the extensive write ups like the one that came with this wonderful coin and ask just what the coin did to be so abused. Sellwood 10.4 should have an N in exergue which Sellwood attributes to Nisa mint. How someone saw this as 10.4 escapes me. Shore 16 needs the OP in exergue which Shore read as a Seleucid date. I don't see that here either. I don't know enough about these to understand what prevents the coin from being a standard blank exergue Sellwood 10.1 from Hekatompylos. When we go beyond even just the base number Sellwood 10, we encounter small points that might get hard to read on less than mint state coins. When dealing with coins with so many variations we have to ask if Sellwood or Shore would have felt obligated to give the coin in question a different sub number had they seen it. I only have two related coins. My 10 series is a fourree which is extremely unusual in Parthian coins (go on a search for Parthian fourrees and tell me how many you find). I'd call it a Sellwood 10.1 but I have no idea if it is an ancient fake with good style or something really wild (my preference) like an official coin overstruck on a reused flan, probably a Roman denarius, which they did not realize was plated. The other coin is a Sellwood 9.1 or similar. These have a two line legend omitting the top line 'Great'. I do not see a mintmark in exergue so I'll go for the basic Hekatompylos but some students with better feelings for style distinctions may choose to differ. Sellwood is an old book and there has certainly been a lot of study on these since 1980. I have not read the works who take some of these coins away from Mithradates and point out that some belong tohis father. I have not seen enough of these to claim any knowledge on them. I have owned these coins for 25 and 20 years respectively. For most of that time I specialized in other things but I guarantee you that Parthians were easier to find in my price bracket before Fred Shore wrote his book and attracted so many people to what I used to consider neat items that I could afford.
Well Doug, not for nothing, I don't have Sellwood or Shore in my back pocket and only have 2 other Parthia coins. The coin was sold as a Sassanid Dirham, so I think my attribution is far more accurate then the dealer that was selling it. Having nothing but the internet at my disposal and having looked at the few pics that where available, and I made the determination my self. For what it its worth my 10.4 was based on this pic... Which looks darn similar, look at the eyes of Mithradates. I know the OP or N is not there so then what is it? My opinion on what happened to the coin is, it was struck with rusty or worn dies,, circulated and then cleaned, and waalaah my POS. I got it for very reasonable so...whatever it is I am happy. I was hoping someone could narrow down the attribution...but hey...
I note one of his Sellwood 10.4 coins clearly shows the N in exergue. The others with other letters are listed as 'variant' but I do not understand how they became 10.4 variant rather than just 10 variants. This is a good site with many nice coins shown (he even has my 10.1 fourree). I have the two best books and have been to the best site and am still confused. Catalogs work best when there are not a thousand minor variations.
The book I reference Doug is the very same Sunrise Collection book you mentioned earlier. Its not the source, but uses articles published by Assar who was working with Sellwood on a third edition until unfortunately Mr Sellwood passed away. I will try to look this coin up and see if its in there.
I would go with a Sellwood 10.1, Sunrise 254, attributed to Phriapatios to Mithradates I (185-132 bc).
Sellwood 10.4 variant (ΟΡ in exergue) This coin certainly is Shore 16 but why Chris lists this as a 10.4 variant is beyond me. 10.2 to 10.14 have different letters or symbols in various places. 10.4 is the one with an n and Sellwood has no OP option. Sellwood has no photos so you can't talk about style. I have no idea.
For sake of clarity, I believe the Chris Doug is referring to is Chris Hopkins of parthia.com, not me. Btw, the third edition of Sellwood was not really going to show any new coins, simply change some attributions of who minted them, like the 10.1 changing from Mithradates I to the new attribution.
Doug/Medoraman - Do you guys have an idea on a mint location for this coin? There is some very interesting info regarding the reign of said Mithradates.
Looking back on your 10.1 attribution I would assume the mint is Hecatompylos rather than Nisa. Is this true for all 10.1's?
Yes. 10.1 is listed as Hecatompylos. 10.4 is Nisa with the N and there are several other exergue letters listed as Mint:? which leaves open the question as to whether the N stood for Nisa or what. The matter of OP being Greek numerals (170) rather than a city name or something else would be more acceptable to me if they had a coin with AOP (171) or something else. N could be 60 but that makes no sense in any year system. Many of the other symbols are squiggles that I have trouble reading. I note that Sellwood lists several that I can't find photographed online suggesting they are more rare than N, OP etc.
