Ancients: Alexander the Great

I was intending to make a larger post about Alexander the Great's coinage as a whole, but due to time constraints, will cut it short to just this new purchase for the moment.



Macedonia, Philip II; Colophon, c. 322 BC, Stater, 8.65g. Le Rider pl. 90, 16. Obv: Laureate head of Apollo r., with features of Alexander the Great. Rx: Fast biga driven r. by charioteer with hair streaming in wind and holding goad; below forelegs of horses, tripod; ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥ in exergue.This is the very special issue that is universally thought to bear the portrait of Alexander himself. The coin is struck in high relief and the portrait is sculptural in nature. Finest quality possible. Exquisite Mint State

This coin is one of a very small group of staters struck in the name of Philip II which bear portraits of individuals rather than generic heads of Apollo and is stylistically unlike any of the previous issues. Struck in Kolophon and in Magnesia from a single obverse die that was used by both mints, this coin was produced during the short reign of Philip III Arrhidaios. The coin’s beauty and importance has made it one of the most desirable and exciting of all the gold staters in the name of Philip II.

Most of these staters are unclear in who they depict, but this piece, minted within a year of the death of Alexander the Great, clearly bears a portrait of Alexander himself, and is one of the earliest of all portraits we have of him.

While it lacks the customary forehead cowlick or "anastole" found in most images of Alexander the Great, the uncanny resemblance of the facial features are identical to those on known portraits of him showing that the uncommonly talented die engraver is seeking to evoke the great conqueror with this magnificent depiction.

In this amalgamation of King and God by the engraver, we see a wholly justified comparison: as Apollo was known as Phanaios - ‘bringer of light’, so was Alexander seen as having carried the light of Hellenic culture to the farthest reaches of the known world.

The issue seems intended to legitimize the patchwork Macedonian regime put together by Alexander's generals after his death in Babylon under the figurehead rulers Philip III Arrhidaeus and the infant Alexander IV, his posthumously born son. As such the "Philip" named on the reverse should probably be seen as referring to Arrhidaeus rather than the traditional attribution to Philip II.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Impressive & stunning.

 

A real beauty. The strike is phenomenal.

 

Magnificent! If the die was shared by the mints, how is it known that there were two mints or how is it shown that one of the mints did not produce coins for both? I assume there is some distinction of the reverses but I fail to see how an issue attributed to mints by style shares a die unless the reverses are distinctive. Is it the tripod?

 

Gorgeous in every coinceivable way

Are there many (or any) other instances of a coin's die traveling that far for re-use? While somewhat geographically close, Kolophon and Magnesia were not exactly "just down the road" from one another.

Had to Google "anastole", which sounded cardiac in nature (systole, diastole, asystole...). Etymology: Greek ana- means "up to, toward, exceedingly, back, against", -stole is from the root of Greek word stellein, "to place, array". Okay, that fits.

So that others don't have to lie awake at night wondering how then the cardiac words share the same roots... Systole is from Greek sustellein "to contract".

 

Another superb offering AJ. I've been looking at Alexander Tetradrachms lately. It is interesting to note that your coin bears an actual portrait of Alexander himself, while it is generally agreed that the portraits on the tets minted under Alexander are supposed to represent Hercules with lion skin.

And yet I can't help but notice the likeness between his portrait on your coin and those of Hercules seen on many Alexander Tets.

 

An absolute stunner in every way. My entire collection has now curled up it's tail and gone to hide in a corner in shame.

 

How true. I just purchased a coin that cost me $13.51 which is probably close to 1/1000 of the cost of this coin. I enjoy my coins even though they are bargain basement, but I DO love seeing these beauties when AJ or someone else posts them. Truly works of art.

 

Yet another reason to assassinate AJ.

 

absolutely positively jaw droppingly stupendously stunning.

well, off to change my underwear.

seriously, thanks for posting AJ...damn.

 

=> Fake!!

.... just jokes ...

Another winner, Bossman

 

Super Joe. The best Philip I have ever seen. I am jealous.

 

Amazing!

 

The reverses are indeed distinct, and easiest to notice from the tripod as you guessed. Here's a good example of the reverse of the same stater from Magnesia: (not my coin/image)

 

I don't know of many, and I do wonder if the minted coins were instead taken from one mint to another to "share" the design, and then copied visually. Perhaps with a special issue like this one, the engravers were not confident enough in their ability to duplicate the obverse.

It is very historically interesting to think about the process by which the die would have been brought between mints. I presume under very heavy guard to prevent anyone from intercepting and minting counterfeits with legitimate dies, or perhaps that's why they only brought the obverse die and left the reverse to be re-engraved.

 

There's certainly nothing at all wrong with less expensive coins: everyone has different budgets. I still love going around at coin shows and buying a couple $10 ancients from bargain bins. Regardless of your price level, the coins we're buying are near or over 2,000 years old. To those who don't know prices, even the most worn coin of that age is priceless.

 

I hope you will continue to put together your thesis on Alexander the Great coinage and post here. It will be of great interest to the forum.

Stunning portrait on that stater. The face looks like one that might exist today. Have we changed so much over thousands of years.

 

There is one more piece of information I would like to see gathered. It would require someone of skill examining (photos would work) all known examples of both reverses. Then the coins could be ordered according to die wear, striking characteristics and alloy content/trace elements. If all coins from one reverse seem to be earlier in the life of the obverse die and there is a difference in fabric and metal impurities, it would seem safe to say the obverse die was sent to the second city when the first was finished with it. If the metal is absolutely identical and characteristics of striking match well, we might have a case of one city striking all the coins and providing them to the other (probably on contract for a fee). This would also be the suspicion if there are early and late die state coins from each city. Of course it is quite possible that few enough coins were struck with the die that it never got enough wear to separate out a late state.

I often find super high grade and high price coins boring for the money they require. This is not the case here. It would be interesting also to see if there are links between the minor coins of the same cities. It would be quite reasonable for a pair of cities to contract where one would provide the other with services in minting gold in return for similar service from the other in silver. Obviously I know of no evidence in this regard here but part of the game in numismatics is to keep the eyes open and see that a coin like this one is a lot more than just a pretty face.

 

This strikes me as a curious comment, and I'll admit that I'm not sure I understand the sentiment.

For me, the beauty of a work of art -- whether it's a coin, sculpture, or painting, -- has nothing to do with its price. While I blanch at the amount paid for a Van Gogh or Rembrandt, I'm still filled with awe and amazement when I see one, even more so when I have an opportunity to view one up close in a gallery or museum.

The same is true for a beautiful or distinctive coin, irrelevant of the price a collector might be willing to pay for that coin. AJ's coin in this post would be a work of art even if it were as common as a cockroach and sold for melt value.

But, as always, de gustibus non est disputandum.

 

The point here is that an expensive coin need to bring something to the collection other than being expensive. The OP coin does that. Many are less successful being either just a bit better than a hundred others of their type or perhaps a gold version of a type exactly duplicated in silver. There are many gold staters of Alexander. To me, the shared die situation makes this the one to desire over one of the many others we see offered.

This is where we differ. When I go to a museum and see a work of a 'name' master, I expect to see the reason that master is respected not just another of his works from a lesser period. In terms of antiquities, we see statues sold for much more than coins even when the statue is a poor copy (some are the first century equivalents of a Velvet Elvis). I would rather have an interesting coin than a beautiful but otherwise boring one. That is simply a matter of opinion.