What's in a smile? Everything.

Maybe a Grimace and an Owl...


Athens Attica
454-404 BCE
AR hemidrachm
16mm 2.08g
Athena frontal eye -
facing Owl wings closed olive branches
COP 70 SG 2528



SICILY Kamarina
Æ Onkia
13mm 1.5g
420-405 BCE
Gorgon tongue -
KAMA owl r lizard in claw, pellet in ex
SNG Münch 411

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Yes, quite so. Isolation has been a huge reaper during this period and it's the one thing we can't mess with. Try my little suggestion and I virtually guarantee greater cheer.

I look forward to it. The period of 250-148 is the least discussed of any non-Macedonian mainland Hellenic coinage. No one seems to talk about it.

Speaking of cheer, my little shipping crisis seems to be solved and this delicious veggie and cheese tray in front of me certainly brings some cheer.

 

I feel fortunate to have my smilin' Group II, despite its flaws. I was able to get it only because it was misidentified as the common mass produced type and flew under the radar.

 

I'll have to search around for my owl. It's a slabbed coin (Christmas present) and my raw coin pictures are incompetent enough; imagine a slab.

 

That's a bonafide Group II owl, very rare. The very few that I have seen for sale are beyond what I can afford. That was indeed a fortunate situation for you to acquire one. Congrats!

Checking Starr, your owl seems to match Group IIA 23.

 

If I can get a halfway decent picture, could you ID my owl, robinjojo? I think it's one of the 450-400 kinds.

I'm trying to solve a PC mini crisis (stupid Windows privacy settings caused other programs to break), so I don't have time at the moment to find it.

 

Sure, please post your owl when you're able to. There are many CT collectors who can help with classifying your owl.

 

Thanks, @robinjojo! Another expert here couldn't find a match in Starr, at least on a quick check... and he doubted it was Group II.A because he felt the lips on mine were too thick. (He thought it was probably II.B or II.C though the distinction is rather fraught.) If you're sure it's a die match to II.A 23 that would be awesome!! (Sadly I don't have Starr myself.)

I also like that the chisel mark and countermarks indicate that it circulated in Northern Syria/Cilicia, thus being a relatively early coin ambassador for Athens.

I also have a mass-produced owl from the recent hoard:

 

I don't think we can trust auction house IDs on this either. For example, take a look at this search on acsearch. I think quite a few of these Group II attributions are incorrect, especially the cheaper ones. (Though I do think this cheap Nomos one is Group II.) For example, many of these have palmettes that are too low for Group II, as on your OP coin. What do you think?

 

You're right about auction house identification when it comes to Starr groups. Here's an owl currently listed in the Harlan Berk auction/sale 145. It is described as being a Starr Group II owl, but I am inclined to classify it as a Group III, due to the shifting of the palmette more towards the lower part of the first olive leaf, plus the long wing on the owl with both its tip and the tail feathers clearly above the feet.

https://www.hjbltd.com/#!/inventory/item-detail/ancient-coins/99737?fromBbs=219th Buy Or Bid Sale

As far as the olive leaves on the helmet are concerned, here's what Starr has to say about that feature and other features of Group III owls:

"The first tetradrachms assigned to this group might almost as well go in Group II.C, but distinctions gradually become more apparent. On the obverse the spiral on the helmet curves around on the bowl so as to point downward along the first olive leaf; by the end of the group the palmette is aimed towards the base of this leaf. The leaves themselves are no longer always graduated in size; as a result the right leaf can protrude into the crest [as with my example]. Modeling around the mouth of Athena becomes more supple so that the cheek appears rounded. The eye is sometimes very ogival. In some cases the designer seems to have reverted to models of Group II.B, but in these examples the reverse serves to distinguish the later issues.

Changes are, thus, even more obvious on the reverses of the tetradrachms of Group III. The body and the wings of the owl increase in size; from this point onward the wings and tail are almost always above the base line of the claws. As a result the wings rise along the left edge of the die, but they are still completely shown. The two legs are clearly separated, though not in the fashion which will be employed in Group IV. The left leaf of the twig still comes off below the right leaf, but the distance is steadily diminishing; the leaves themselves grow longer. The lettering tends to be rather neat, especially with respect to the epsilon."

Getting back to your coin, the reason I think it is a Group II.A owl is the very compact styling of the owl on the reverse. The owl seems to become longer and more streamlined in subsequent Group II examples. On the other hand, the reverse leaves seem somewhat larger than those in the Group II.A 23 owl, but I think, with these coins, there has to be some latitude when attempting to categorize based on the photos in Starr, and I think the main feature, the owl's very compact body puts your coin into Group II.A.

The styling of Athena's mouth seems pretty consistent within this group, but again the grainy nature of many of the photos make it difficult to say this in a definitive manner.

 

Just short of GLEE

 

Thanks for these very helpful reflections! I had noticed the fact that my owl is exceedingly compact. In-hand the reverse leaves actually seem quite small. To some extent their larger appearance in the photo may be due to the compactness of the owl.

 

Here's a Group V owl with a similar reverse style, although the grade is lower.

 

I want to see it’s face

 

That’s what I’m talking about.

 

Super nice