Hi, coin misattribution seldom occurs when the auction house experts have difficulty (or have no idea) what reference to attach. This happens often with little known coins. However, some persistent misattribution can also suggest an intention to get overvalued deals. To provide one example, there is this Sidonian 1/16 AR shekel coin that Numismatik Lanz persists to refer as a Samarian coin. Jewish coins (Yehud, Samaria, Philistia, etc.) represent a niche among collectors and certain are willing to throw fortune to get these coins. Here are four listings (two nearly obliterated by the 3-months eBay expiracy): Format: (YYYY.MM.DD) (2016.05.14) Listing Obliterated, but picture was saved. (2016.06.19) Only listing remains; coin picture obliterated. (2016.10.11) (2016.10.30) Obverse: Phoenician pentekonter with pataikos; Beth letter standing for Baalshillem Reverse: Mythological heroic battle between Great King (or hero) holding a dagger and a standing lion. Assyrian iconography had similar art. Ayin letter for Abdashtart I (son of Baalshillem). Each time I see one of these 1/16 shekels, not a single time I see the lower value attribution being the Sidonian coin (not the Samarian imitation). They choose to attach a reference to Meshorer & Qedar's Samarian Coinage (SC). When it is a Samarian imitation, there is a feature that distinguishes it from the Sidonian issue (coregency of Baalshillem & Abdashtart). Either there is an Aramaic legend or a symbol instead of the Phoenician letters Beth and Ayin. See below some cases from Meshorer & Qedar's SC. A close case is #22, but obverse has an Aramaic legend ending with a floral pattern (reading direction: right to left). One actual case seen on the coin market sold by Heritage Auctions is showcased below: The floral pattern could be assimilated with the lily emblem as seen on one type of YHD (yehud) coin. Samaria belonged to the same area. Menorah Coin Project lists many specimens: The Aramaic legend stands for "DL", which could stand for Delayah as seen in the Bible. Speculation though. In any case, the closest to what Lanz refers as Samarian coin is the following one. The key the difference, according to Meshorer & Qedar, is that the letter Beth is written in retrograde fashion (SC #199). Here are two cases circulating in the market: Roma Numismatics and Numismatica Ars Classica. Roma Numismatics Numismatica Ars Classica However, Josette Elayi (in "Le monnayage de la cité phénicienne de Sidon à l’époque perse", pp. 466-470) rejects their hypothesis as it could simply be a case of die engraver blunder where he got confused when designing the negative image of the obverse die. Some auction houses correctly attributed SC #199 regardless of recent rejection by Josette Elayi (expert in Phoenician culture). However, it seems Numismatic Lanz decided that as long there is the beth letter legend, regardless of its direction, it is worth to tag it as most valued "Samarian" coin. Every single case...even if the beth letter cannot be seen as the obverse is badly centered. Anyways, if anyone has its personal story to share about overevaluation and misattribution, feel free to share.
Point in case, the poster in another forum straightforwardly expressed uncertainty regarding his coin being a Sidonian or Samarian type. Indeed, if looking up in ACSearch database, one can see the attribution is often baseless. Lanz Numismatics is not the sole perpertrator and might have caught others' flu.
That happens all the time with Lanz, they have boilerplate descriptions for many of their less usual coins. That's not always bad, in fact I once bought a rare Merovingian denier that was described as a sceatta, a major find for my collection.
I also saw a coin at Sovoca, Celtic coin..no was a coin from Hatra, I made a bid and lost....a pitty....so more people saw it :-((
Part of the problem with misattribution is the internet itself. People have become lazy. They dont buy books anymore. They all want the information free and instantly accessible. When a misattribution gets into the system it becomes part of a database, one which will never go away and likely will never be corrected. I never trust any attribution for any coin. I always check it myself. Just yesterday I was working on a coin of Vespasian. The reference was of course wrong. How many people realize there are two versions of RIC Volume 2? The latest is a revised edition, but one still needs both volumes as they now cover a different spread of emperors. And many dealers are now making the same mistake. Why go to the bookshelf when one can just do a quick search of the various databases? Because those databases are frequently wrong.
Ken, your point concerning online misattributions is spot on. I noticed an error on wildwinds a few weeks ago where the RIC number was incorrect because the direction of the reverse legend was not taken into account. It also happens that the photo was a photo of one my coins and the RIC number given did not match the attribution I had. With the books it was possible to identify this error. Misattributions can be frustrating, especially for the newer collector. My focus is on imperatorial coins and the first century AD. As a result I have been compiling references to become more familiar with the coins I am buying. I have the appropriate Seaby books for my timeframe, and I just received my copy of Sear RCV (2000). I also have a pdf of RIC I and I have a copy of Agora. I have been spending some time tracking down the references for my coins and I have learned a lot in the process. I have not only learned that some references I had from dealers were incorrect, but more importantly I have learned to do the detective work myself. It is very satisfying to be able to find the correct references on one's own. Unexpectedly, it has also been a source of enjoyment. I have found that I have enjoyed my time spent with these volumes. I will be spending the next few days slowly adding the Sear numbers to the attributions. Not a big job since I only have 29 coins in my collection.
I have often said here that people who want a catalog number should buy the catalog but we regularly get requests from beginners who only want a catalog number and care little about the factors that make it different from another number. We continue to honor their requests. Should we? I have severe issues with book publishers who change numbering systems with a new edition of a book without changing the name of the book so all my RIC numbers from volume 2 became incorrect overnight. Sear was bad with that when he had one volume books but when he came out with the Millennium edition we started referring to numbers as Millennium Sear (MS?) rather than just Sear. That was fine. Not long ago we found an example of a coin in Sear Byzantine that was one number different in the newer edition than it was in the previous one. Get real, Sear. Even if we all buy every edition of every book, we don't need questions whether this is cataloged in the new one, the older one or the original one. I wish they would publish a new code when they feel the need to start over with numbers. Am I asking for Millennium RIC for the new Vol. 2? They can come up with a better name. RIC is bad enough with the repeating numbers (Septimius Severus has a #1 for his early coins and those when he was joined by one or both sons - Later volumes have a #1 for each mint so it is necessary to say something like "RIC123 page 456 volume VIII). I look up and read listings on my coins but I have real doubts about the value of recording numbers that may not last past the end of the year. Is there a better way? IDK!
