This coin almost looks as though it had been sand blasted. Do you think that would be a method of cleaning coins? MACEDONIAN KINGDOM. Alexander III the Great (336-323 BC). AR tetradrachm (23mm, 16.37 gm, 1h). XF. Late lifetime or early posthumous issue of Byblus, under Ptolemy I Soter, ca. 330-320 BC. Head of Heracles right, wearing lion skin headdress, paws tied before neck / AΛEΞANΔPOY, Zeus seated left on backless throne, right leg drawn back, feet on stool, eagle in right hand, scepter in left; AP monogram in left field. Price 3426.
I'm going to say modern cast. As tempting as it would be to say porosity is the culprit, the design is too soapy and lacking detail for a coin with that appears to be otherwise in XF condition. Also, it is fairly underweight. I also see some casting beads that would be inconsistent with porosity. I would also not expect to see that level porosity on a Greek Tet from that period, as the silver should be higher quality. I'm afraid you got duped for a fake.
This is not a coin I bought but is currently in a Heritage auction. I seem to be seeing quite a few Alexander tets in auctions with a similar finish on the surfaces. I doubt that Heritage would be selling this if it is an obvious fake, so I just wonder how the surface of the coin was treated to achieve such a finish.
I don't know how they determined genuine, but then again, they have the physical coin and all I have is a photo. But based on that photo I'd pass for a better coin. What could cause those surfaces? Improper cleaning with an acid such as lemon juice might cause something like that. If genuine that's probably what happened, though I would not expect to see it that bad on a Greek Tet from that period. But who knows, I don't have the actual coin in front of me to examine all around under magnification. Also, if genuine, that coin may have lamination issues on the reverse. So yeah, stay away.
I think it is porosity which could have been caused from many different factors. Not the least among them the soil and amount of fertilizer, herbicides, and such. But, like @Sallent said, it's hard to say from just a single image.
The coin is genuine, just very porous. Why? Hard to say. Probably a combination of burial conditions and cleaning. But look closely: you will see a lot of cracking, especially on the reverse. This is a good indication that it might be crystalized. Such coins are highly susceptible to breakage.
They can call it whatever they like at Heritage or whomever else is selling it, I wouldn't pay XF prices for that coin.
As far as actual wear is concerned, it is XF. But for those who are unfamiliar with ancients they should add the caveat 'porous'. I suppose one could say XF, porous, net VF, but some people dont like the use of the word 'net'. Grading can be a minefield. As for value, I think fairly between $40-60. If its crystallized I would say maybe $20. But why bother? Its a very common type, and one can get very attractive examples anywhere from $60 on the low end to $150 for a really nice one.
Did you see this is a tet Ken? I would agree with you if we were talking about a drachm. $250 and up would get you a decent Alexander tetradrachm.
Yes, I assumed it was a drachm, and looks like it from the photo. I didn't bother to look at the auction. For a tetradrachm you can find some real ugly examples under $100, but a very nice EF or so will start at about $400-500.
From the appearance of the surfaces it probably had a very thick black sulfide patina that they stripped, it may have looked much better before.
If it has been stripped as you say, how can you say it is XF as far as actual wear is concerned? How can you tell how much actual wear it had before being stripped?
These terms like Extra Fine, Fine, Good, etc. don't have the precise meaning that they do when collecting modern coins. Wear is only one aspect of ancient grading which is much more subjective and less important than with moderns.
Well, the lack of wear is obvious from the details that remain. It's entirely possible it was even higher grade than that, but removal of the original patina has done some damage to the coin itself. As far as I am concerned the interpretation of the grade is pointless. One can call it anything they want. It is what it is.
I agree with @Ken Dorney ... I never even read nor consider the grade. It means nothing to me. It is what i looks like or in-hand for me.
And I agree with you as well. For me it is overall appearance and not much else. I have no use for labels. And as for the OP coin, there are plenty of people who would be happy to own it despite its problems. After all, its still a representative piece of history.
The answer is simple. There are plenty of people who will believe the coin is XF because it has no wear. Coins graded XF sell better than coins graded VG. I would rather have a worn coin with good surfaces but the people who frequent this seller don't agree with me and have no idea what a proper XF coin should look like. IMO, you could remove this coin from the holder and put it in our pocket with a bunch of other coins until it wore down a bit. I suspect that it would retain porosity in the recesses until it was worn to Fine so I would assign desirability of this coin more like a proper VG. I don't value this coin as high as Ken's "real ugly" level. What is worse than that? Test cut? Barbarous? Fourree? Not in my opinion. I prefer any of the below.
It looks like it is covered in horn silver (silver chloride) to me. If it is horn silver, to my knowledge there any further cleaning you can do to bring out the details. They are lost.
At an underweight 16.37g I doubt that it's covered with horn silver or anything else anymore. Regarding how to determine its original grade since the surfaces are stripped I'd agree that it's obvious, provided that you've seen enough before/after cleaning and other porous eroded coins to extrapolate what surfaces like these used to look like. Anyway, it's quite an ugly and unappealing piece so keep away unless you can get it super cheap.