First Ancient and some questions

[xCandia]

Pontos. Amisos. Mithridates VI (120-63 BC). Tetrachalkon (Bronze, 22 mm, 9.17 g), (85-65 BC), Head of Mithridates VI as Dionysos to right, wearing wreath of ivy and fruit. Rev. ΑΜΙΣΟΥ Panther skin and thyrsos on cista mystica; to left, monogram. HGC 7, 243. SNG BM Black Sea 1207. Malloy 26c. Minor stable malachite "tear" below Mithridates VI/Dionysos eye, otherwise, about extremely fine.

 

Today, is one of those special days full of thrill that only numismatics can offer. It is my first ancient coins. And that start comes with a lot of enthusiasm and many questions.

 

Here comes some of my questions. I see on many cataloguing of similar coins, various information, sometimes a little bit conflicting and would like to question the following:

1. I see sometimes different dates regarding these coins. Some indicate the period of 120-63 BC as the correct one, while other the period 85-65 BC. Which one is correct? Is the first one referring to the time of reign of Mithridates VI and the other on the period that the city of Amisos was minting those coins? How do we know in that case that the period of minting is from 85-65 BC?
2. What is the denomination of those coins? I have seen in some occasions to name them as Tetrachalkon, while many others avoid labeling a denomination. Whats is the case with that? When we do not know how a coin was called back then regarding its specific denomination, should we assume based on any known numismatic standards?
3. I have seen sometimes these coins to be labeled as Bronze or Æ, whereas some other describe it as Orichalcum. What is the correct one?
4. Who is depicted on the face of the obverse? Here I see many conflicting information. Some say that it is the head of Mithridates VI, while other say it is the head of young Dionysos. I think in the study 'The Coinage of Amisus', by A. Malloy, he describes the rendering of Dionysos on the obverse as 'bearing a resemblance to Mithradates Eupater'. Is there a correct attribution?
5. Do we know what the monogram means? Was it of the mintmaster/engraver or it meant something else?
6. Is my description about condition correct or not? Regarding the stable malachite spot below the eye, I am not completely sure, as I have not seen the coin in hand, yet. What is your opinion on that? Also, do you think the description of condition's coin as about extremely fine, correct? Or it is closer to a good very fine?
7. I see a sudden influx of those specific coins in the past couple of years. Does someone know what lead to that? Could be some of those coins be fake or maybe many were found that led to an increase of these coins on auctions?

 

It would be great if someone could answer those questions or even one/some of them and I would like to thank everyone in advance for his time.

Edited June 5 by xCandia

[AETHER]

Beautiful coin, congrats!  Wish I could answer your questions.

[CPK]

Welcome to the Forum and the hobby, @xCandia! That is a wonderful first coin. Unfortunately I can't answer any of your questions, but there are lots of knowledgeable and helpful people here who will doubtless be able to assist you. 🙂

[Romismatist]

Welcome to the forum, @xCandia!

Although this series is not my specific area of expertise, I can attempt to answer some of your questions, although I will defer to those with more expertise in this region and these coins.

3) The coin is bronze or Ae (copper) and not orichalcum. Orichalcum was typically used for sestertii during the Roman period, which came much later than this coin was minted. Typically Greek coins were gold / electrum, silver, or bronze. I'm not aware of any that were orichalcum, but I could be wrong.

4) Most sources refer to the bust on the obverse as the portrait of a young Dionysos bearing the features of Mithradates. This is likely speculation of a similar nature as the bronze and silver coinage of Alexander the Great, where the image on the coins is Herakles, but people think that it represents Alexander III as Herakles. I think it is safe to say that the portrait is that of Dionysos, and more speculative to say that the bust is Mithradates represented as a young Dionysos. 

5) The monograms sometimes refer to a moneyer or minting magistrate, or they could be mint control marks. I'm not sure what they represent in this case.

6) The coin certainly looks like it is in excellent condition. I would not be too worried about whether it is GVF or EF, as different people grade it differently. If it came in a slab, it was likely graded EF as NGC tends to grade up a level. Although the surfaces are slightly rough, both sides are well centered and there is minimal or no wear.

7) The coin looks authentic to me, so I wouldn't be too worried that it is fake, especially if you acquired it from a reputable dealer or auction house. From time to time, hoards of different coins are discovered that hit the market. The one I remember most was a massive Turkish hoard of Athenian tetradrachms which came on the market several years ago and is probably still being dispersed. This coin was also minted in Turkey, so I wouldn't be surprised if hoards of this coin have also come to market in the past. Another reason more coins are entering the market is because auction prices have increased significantly for some coin types, leading more collectors to consider consigning their coins at auction. That would also increase the number of coins you would see on the market.

I hope that helps, at least a little bit 😉

 

[Deinomenid]

@xCandia welcome! I cannot add anything  of specific value to @Romismatist's comments but it  might be  of interest to use the search function top right when on the forum home  page to see other posts on this general subject. Eg "Amisos". There are quite a few helpful comments.

 

[xCandia]

 

First of all, thank you everyone for your time! I am many years collector of modern/late medieval coins and just entered the wonderful world of ancient coins. Thank you very much for your responses! I am trying to put in order the chaotic thoughts of my head and get answers from fellow collectors.

10 hours ago, AETHER said:

Beautiful coin, congrats!  Wish I could answer your questions.

Thank you very much! Very nice videos on YouTube, loved the cinematic feautures!

 

10 hours ago, CPK said:

Welcome to the Forum and the hobby, @xCandia! That is a wonderful first coin. Unfortunately I can't answer any of your questions, but there are lots of knowledgeable and helpful people here who will doubtless be able to assist you. 🙂

Thank you very much! It is like feeling again the first moments when I started collecting modern coins! Trully a wonderful new numismatic world!

 

9 hours ago, Romismatist said:

Welcome to the forum, @xCandia!

Although this series is not my specific area of expertise, I can attempt to answer some of your questions, although I will defer to those with more expertise in this region and these coins.

3) The coin is bronze or Ae (copper) and not orichalcum. Orichalcum was typically used for sestertii during the Roman period, which came much later than this coin was minted. Typically Greek coins were gold / electrum, silver, or bronze. I'm not aware of any that were orichalcum, but I could be wrong.

4) Most sources refer to the bust on the obverse as the portrait of a young Dionysos bearing the features of Mithradates. This is likely speculation of a similar nature as the bronze and silver coinage of Alexander the Great, where the image on the coins is Herakles, but people think that it represents Alexander III as Herakles. I think it is safe to say that the portrait is that of Dionysos, and more speculative to say that the bust is Mithradates represented as a young Dionysos. 

5) The monograms sometimes refer to a moneyer or minting magistrate, or they could be mint control marks. I'm not sure what they represent in this case.

6) The coin certainly looks like it is in excellent condition. I would not be too worried about whether it is GVF or EF, as different people grade it differently. If it came in a slab, it was likely graded EF as NGC tends to grade up a level. Although the surfaces are slightly rough, both sides are well centered and there is minimal or no wear.

7) The coin looks authentic to me, so I wouldn't be too worried that it is fake, especially if you acquired it from a reputable dealer or auction house. From time to time, hoards of different coins are discovered that hit the market. The one I remember most was a massive Turkish hoard of Athenian tetradrachms which came on the market several years ago and is probably still being dispersed. This coin was also minted in Turkey, so I wouldn't be surprised if hoards of this coin have also come to market in the past. Another reason more coins are entering the market is because auction prices have increased significantly for some coin types, leading more collectors to consider consigning their coins at auction. That would also increase the number of coins you would see on the market.

I hope that helps, at least a little bit 😉

 

Thank you so much for your time and your response! It is so wonderful to be able to share thoughts and have nice talks with fellow collectors.

Regarding the 3rd) while I was searching for those coins I saw some descriptions, that pointed out the medal as Orichalcum (https://www.numisbids.com/n.php?lot=616&p=lot&sid=7654). On the vast majority of descriptions it was mentioned as Bronze. As a result, it confused me a little bit and makes me question what is correct.

Regarding the 4th), I totally understand now what you mean with the example on silver coinage of Alexander the Great with the Herakles depiction on.

Regarding the 5th), indeed I assume too, that most probably the monogram refers to a minting magistrate. Let's see if somebody know more information about it.

Regarding the 6th), I totally agree that grading tends many times to be subjective as somebody would grade the coin differently than someone else, but would like to know if my grading and description on it, is ok or acceptable. NGC indeed tends to grade occasionally higher coins, but wouldn't mind their opinion on ancient coins, as I think it doesn't offer any significant advantage and it is such a shame to encapsulate a piece of history and not be able to handle it like it used to approximately 2000 years ago.

Regarding the 7th), it was acquired from a reputable seller, so you have right. It must be authentic. Just I thought it was a little bit strange that I saw all of a sudden an influx of those. However, your points on it makes totally sense and answer completely my question!

It helps a tone!

 

8 hours ago, Deinomenid said:

@xCandia welcome! I cannot add anything  of specific value to @Romismatist's comments but it  might be  of interest to use the search function top right when on the forum home  page to see other posts on this general subject. Eg "Amisos". There are quite a few helpful comments.

 

Thank you very much! Yes, you are right, by searching on the forum you can find so so many information on so many topics! When I have time I will head directly there to search for more!

[Phil Anthos]

I never worry about grade descriptions with ancients like I would with modern coins, and there is very little consistency between dealers anyway. It's not an exact science like the Sheldon scale. Eye appeal is everything, and to me there are only two grades... buy it or don't.

~ Peter 

[John Conduitt]

The date and denomination are probably debatable. With some ancients (e.g. the Parthians) the academics haven't even worked out who the rulers were, let alone who is on the coin, even less so the date. The denominations are just as certain. Roman coins get called things like nummus, follis, siliqua - and yet it might be that none of those are correct. (Follis is definitely not correct, at least until you get to the Byzantines).

Edited June 6 by John Conduitt

[xCandia]

On 6/6/2024 at 7:28 PM, Phil Anthos said:

I never worry about grade descriptions with ancients like I would with modern coins, and there is very little consistency between dealers anyway. It's not an exact science like the Sheldon scale. Eye appeal is everything, and to me there are only two grades... buy it or don't.

~ Peter 

Thank you very much for your response!

On 6/6/2024 at 7:47 PM, John Conduitt said:

The date and denomination are probably debatable. With some ancients (e.g. the Parthians) the academics haven't even worked out who the rulers were, let alone who is on the coin, even less so the date. The denominations are just as certain. Roman coins get called things like nummus, follis, siliqua - and yet it might be that none of those are correct. (Follis is definitely not correct, at least until you get to the Byzantines).

Yes, I totally understand what you mean. Sure when I see Roman coins (not Byzantines) labeled as Follis, it must not be correct. Thank you for your response!

[Ryro]

Welcome to the addiction known as ancients. Cool coin to start your journey. 

If you want to enhance your collecting experience there is an excellent book on Mithradates called, The Poison King: The Life and Legend of Mithradates, Rome's Deadliest Enemy. I highly recommend it to any fans of the late Hellenistic or Roman Republic periods. 

I don't have one of that type, but here are others he minted:

PONTOS, Amisos, c. 125-100 BCE (under Mithradates VI) AE 17. 3.83g, 17mm.

Obv: Bare-headed bust of Perseus right

Rev: AMI-ΣOY, cornucopia between caps of the Dioscuri, stars above each.

SNG BM Black Sea 1129-33; BMC 65.

From the Erworben collection.

 

Mithradates VI Eupator

Pontus, Amisos. 120-63 BC. AE19 (8.11 gm) 85-65 BC. Head of Gorgon on aegis / Nike standing with palm. SNG.BM.1177v. VF

Mithradates VI Eupator

 

PONTOS, Amisos. Circa 85-65 BC. Æ 20mm (7.98 g, 12h). Helmeted head of Ares(?) right / Sword in sheath; monograms flanking. SNG BM Black Sea 1154-5; SNG Copenhagen 150. VF

Former Savoca

PONTOS, Amisos. Circa 85-65 BC. Æ (28mm, 19.42 g, 12h). Struck under Mithradates VI. Helmeted head of Athena right / Perseus standing facing, holding [harpa] and head of Medusa; body of Medusa at feet, monograms to left and right. Near VF.

 

This coin depicts two figures from the legend of Medusa, who was once a beautiful young maiden. Medusa’s hair was turned into hissing serpents and condemned to turn every living thing which gazed upon her to turn to stone. Perseus, son of Zeus and the mortal Danae, was given the task of slaying this monster. He was aided, in part, by Athena who gave her shield to him for the task. In the context of the period which this coin is from, Perseus and Medusa could be representations of Mithradates VI and Rome, respectively.

[xCandia]

On 6/9/2024 at 6:58 PM, Ryro said:

Welcome to the addiction known as ancients. Cool coin to start your journey. 

If you want to enhance your collecting experience there is an excellent book on Mithradates called, The Poison King: The Life and Legend of Mithradates, Rome's Deadliest Enemy. I highly recommend it to any fans of the late Hellenistic or Roman Republic periods. 

I don't have one of that type, but here are others he minted:

PONTOS, Amisos, c. 125-100 BCE (under Mithradates VI) AE 17. 3.83g, 17mm.

Obv: Bare-headed bust of Perseus right

Rev: AMI-ΣOY, cornucopia between caps of the Dioscuri, stars above each.

SNG BM Black Sea 1129-33; BMC 65.

From the Erworben collection.

 

Mithradates VI Eupator

Pontus, Amisos. 120-63 BC. AE19 (8.11 gm) 85-65 BC. Head of Gorgon on aegis / Nike standing with palm. SNG.BM.1177v. VF

Mithradates VI Eupator

 

PONTOS, Amisos. Circa 85-65 BC. Æ 20mm (7.98 g, 12h). Helmeted head of Ares(?) right / Sword in sheath; monograms flanking. SNG BM Black Sea 1154-5; SNG Copenhagen 150. VF

Former Savoca

PONTOS, Amisos. Circa 85-65 BC. Æ (28mm, 19.42 g, 12h). Struck under Mithradates VI. Helmeted head of Athena right / Perseus standing facing, holding [harpa] and head of Medusa; body of Medusa at feet, monograms to left and right. Near VF.

 

This coin depicts two figures from the legend of Medusa, who was once a beautiful young maiden. Medusa’s hair was turned into hissing serpents and condemned to turn every living thing which gazed upon her to turn to stone. Perseus, son of Zeus and the mortal Danae, was given the task of slaying this monster. He was aided, in part, by Athena who gave her shield to him for the task. In the context of the period which this coin is from, Perseus and Medusa could be representations of Mithradates VI and Rome, respectively.

Thank you very much for your response and time. Didn't had any chance to write back as during summer work is crazy. The Medusa depiction is mesmerising and I was always fascinated when they were telling us on school about that. Thank you again for your time!

[Ed Snible]

1. Older sources say 120-63 BC because those are the years Mithradates reigned and there is no easy way to get firmer dates.  Francois de Callatay wrote extensively about the dates, starting with L'Histoire des Guerres Mithridatiques Vue par les Monnaies (1997, in French).  A friend of mine loaned me her copy; I am struggling with French.  It's nearly 500 pages, a PhD thesis.  Newer publications use de Callatay's proposals.  In English de Callatay has a 2005 paper, “Coins and Archaeology: the (Mis)use of Mithradatic Coins for Chronological Purposes in the Bosporan Area” but can't find my copy of this paper.

I can't remember what he said about your coin type.  For the Aegis/Nike type, he said “[the Piraeus hoard] proves the type ‘Aegis/Nike’ was struck prior to 86 BC, the date of the Sack of Athens and of the destruction of the house where it was found.”.  The date rationale is many little facts like that that build up a big picture.

2. You are correct, the goal is to call the coin by its ancient name.  I don't think there are ancient sources for the denominations of any of Mithridates coins.

4. In his 1889 catalog of the British Museum collection, Warwick Wroth wrote "Dionysiac types are frequent at Amisus, and the head of the god is often assimilated to that of Mithradates himself."  The head is never identified, has the attributes of Dionysos, but resembles Mithridates.  It's not clear if Mithridates asked for Dionysos and some die cutter decided to flatter him.  Perhaps Mithradates asked for his own portrait but showed up for his portrait session dressed as Dionysos for some festival later that day.  We'll never know.

5. Some monograms occur on coins of multiple cities.  I don't know what they mean.  There is a list of all known monograms in a 1991 paper by Michel Amandry (and three others), “Le Tresor De Binbasioglu (Tokat, Turquie) - Monnaies de Bronze des Villes du Pont Frappees sous Mithridate VI Eupator”.  Also in French.

[xCandia]

On 7/2/2024 at 4:50 AM, Ed Snible said:

1. Older sources say 120-63 BC because those are the years Mithradates reigned and there is no easy way to get firmer dates.  Francois de Callatay wrote extensively about the dates, starting with L'Histoire des Guerres Mithridatiques Vue par les Monnaies (1997, in French).  A friend of mine loaned me her copy; I am struggling with French.  It's nearly 500 pages, a PhD thesis.  Newer publications use de Callatay's proposals.  In English de Callatay has a 2005 paper, “Coins and Archaeology: the (Mis)use of Mithradatic Coins for Chronological Purposes in the Bosporan Area” but can't find my copy of this paper.

I can't remember what he said about your coin type.  For the Aegis/Nike type, he said “[the Piraeus hoard] proves the type ‘Aegis/Nike’ was struck prior to 86 BC, the date of the Sack of Athens and of the destruction of the house where it was found.”.  The date rationale is many little facts like that that build up a big picture.

2. You are correct, the goal is to call the coin by its ancient name.  I don't think there are ancient sources for the denominations of any of Mithridates coins.

4. In his 1889 catalog of the British Museum collection, Warwick Wroth wrote "Dionysiac types are frequent at Amisus, and the head of the god is often assimilated to that of Mithradates himself."  The head is never identified, has the attributes of Dionysos, but resembles Mithridates.  It's not clear if Mithridates asked for Dionysos and some die cutter decided to flatter him.  Perhaps Mithradates asked for his own portrait but showed up for his portrait session dressed as Dionysos for some festival later that day.  We'll never know.

5. Some monograms occur on coins of multiple cities.  I don't know what they mean.  There is a list of all known monograms in a 1991 paper by Michel Amandry (and three others), “Le Tresor De Binbasioglu (Tokat, Turquie) - Monnaies de Bronze des Villes du Pont Frappees sous Mithridate VI Eupator”.  Also in French.

Thank you so much for your times and your precious information! With all these great papers you are referring to in French I think that I will have to sharpen up my high-school French! Thank you once again!