Rhodes Hemidrachm with Helios facing slightly right. Does anything look fake to you?

I just added another ancient coin to the collection. This Hemidrachm from Rhodes is 12-13 mm diameter and is made of silver. I’m told that it is from 167 to 88 BC. I don’t know if this dating can be narrowed down any further from the design or magistrate’s name on the reverse. There are several photographs of Helios coins on the Web but I didn’t find an exact match to my coin.

Please take a good look & see if there is anything about this coin that looks fake to you. I bought it because (1) the Sun God facing forward, (2) it has a decent nose, (3) it has attractive surfaces, (4) it is very well centered. After really examining the centered strike & the beautiful 3D design I just had to buy it.

I grade it VF. [The dealer repeatedly called it an EF but that does not make it an EF]. Do you think that VF is about right?

Greece - Caria - Rhodes
c. 167 - 88 BC
AR Hemidrachm
Obv: Radiate head of Helios facing slightly to right
Rev: Rose w/ magistrate ΛΡΤΕΜΠΝ above and p & club below all in incuse square
Perfectly centered VF coin

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Reverse Photo:

 

More Photos

 

reverse photo depicting incuse square

 

Photo from the side:

 

Another obverse shot from the side:

 

Last photo:

 

One area of ancients I know very little about, greek silver. To me it looks OK.

 

I appreciate you taking a look at the coin. It looks good to me too but I'm not qualified to spot fake ancients. I got it from a well-known dealer that has much experience with ancient material. There is a full & cheerful return policy. Do you know of a good book or Website describing known counterfeits?

 

I can only say the same. Looks ok but dont know much about these

 

I see no reason to doubt your coin. I consider VF about right since the nose is not flat and there is some detail left in the flower. I suppose I could be hardline and suggest aVF but can live with VF as well. My coin is of a different magistrate and has more wear so I call it Fine. I consider them of very similar style. I suspect someone has listed the magistrates but that does not mean that we have a correct order or dates assigned. I do not own the reference that does.



http://www.acsearch.info/record.html?id=278270

CNG sold the one above (a bit less worn) as VF and described it:

ISLANDS off CARIA, Rhodos. Rhodes. Circa 170-150 BC. AR Hemidrachm (12mm, 1.38 g). Artemon, magistrate. Radiate head of Helios facing slightly right / Rose with bud to right; club to left;AΡTEMΩN above; all within incuse square. Jenkins, Rhodian, Group B, 44; SNG Keckman 653; SNG Copenhagen 842. VF.

 

I will, you know me.

I would grade it aVF, I see a slight difference in grade between the CNG one and Collect89's. Both are nice coins, don't get me wrong Collect, I just see a hair too much wear on yours for a full VF. Not saying I would not like to own it, it would go nice with some of my Larissa facing busts.

Always remember an XF ancient is a truly wonderful coin. Way too many dealers "give a break" to old coins and try to bump them up a grade, when in fact ancients are graded more strictly than US coins. Same with world coins. An old dealer told me a world dealer overpaid for a US collection once, paying too high % of book, but undergraded all of the US coins by a full grade at least so still made a lot of money off the deal. Ancients and (used to be at least), world coins deduct roughly a full grade versus US coin grading. A true XF ancient, if graded as a US coin, would grade AU50-BU63 is my guess. A true VF ancient would be XF40-45.

Chris

 

I have to agree that EF ancients are rare. I have only a couple coins that approach that level and in many cases I prefer the look of VF coins since real EF's often have a surface texture that I find disturbing but that wears away when the coin goes to VF. Where I differ with the market is that I find well struck but honestly worn to fine is more pleasing than poorly struck and textured mint state factory seconds.

 

Well then you get extra good deals then!

I am with you in that wear to me is simply another thing that can be wrong with a coin. Way too many collectors consider wear to be the WORST type of damage to a coin, and everything else secondary. I consider all aspect away from perfect equally damaging. I will pick out a gF worn but pleasant coin every time instead of a gVF with corrosion. Eye appeal, above all, should make your choice between identical items. Luckily for both of us the market doesn't price coins that way.

While I know this in my head, sometimes it really kind of freaks me out. I was at CICF once, and going through a tray, and there were two identical coins. One was a pleasing, hard green patina toned, well centered byzantine, and the other one was not as well centered with surface porosity. The second was labeled $80, so I made my decision and picked the pleasant green example. Price? $32. I had the 4 $20 in my hand, and was simply speechless why the dealer had my very pleasing gF for $32 while this (technically ignoring porosity and ugly mud brown patina), gVF/aXF was priced at $80. I bet it looked like I was struck stupid, being unable to speak as my mind was trying to comprehend HOW the dealer came up with such pricing!

Its a heck of a point Doug. Bottom line, especially for ancients, buy whatever coin pleases you. Never get hung up on grade, since grade, especially on ancients, is just tiny piece to value, and as long as the coin pleases you, has no bearing on whether you should buy or not.

Again Collect89, this is why you should never be offended by how I grade. I grade pretty strictly, but personally do not worry what the technical grade of a coin is. I simply prefer to use our historical strict grading. However, if you like the coin, and it pleases you, then you made a great purchase. Its a nice coin, nicely centered, nice surfaces, nice contrast, I would have bought it over a full VF or even a gVF with other issues.

Chris