CNG 84, Lot: 236. Estimate $2000. Sold for $2800. This amount does not include the buyer’s fee.

KINGS of MACEDON. temp. Antigonos I Monophthalmos – Lysimachos. Circa 310-280 BC. AR Tetradrachm (27mm, 17.01 g, 12h). In the name and types of Alexander III. Uncertain mint in western Asia Minor(?). Head of Herakles right, wearing lion skin / Zeus Aëtophoros seated left; upright club in left field. Price -; B. Rousseva, “La circulation monétaire en Thrace pendant la haute époque hellénistique (d’après des données des trésors trouvés des terres Bulgares” in RN 1990, pl. VI, 17; CNG 82, lot 441 = Triton IX, lot 787; CNG 70, lot 118; New York Sale XX, lot 135 = Münzen und Medaillen AG FPL 459, no. 5 (all from the same obv. die). EF, attractively toned. Very rare.

From the Tuck Pittman Collection. Ex Gemini V (6 January 2009), lot 537; William Wahler Collection (Numismatic Fine Arts XXV, 29 November 1999), lot 84; Leu 20 (25 April 1978), lot 77.

Rousseva’s example from the Čerpaev hoard (IGCH 468) is apparently the only example of this type published outside of an auction catalog. She attributed that example, which was not linked to others in the hoard, based on the control mark, to Argos, circa 290-280 BC. While this date for any Alexanders at Argos is incorrect (see Price, as well as the intro to Argos in BCD Peloponnesos), an attribution to that city is unlikely for two reasons. First, the style is significantly different from other Argive Alexanders. Second, and most importantly, the style and fabric link this issue to coins with different controls (Phrygian helmet [Triton XII, 201] and akrostolion/serpent [Triton XI, 119 = Gemini III, 98]) that are not marks used at Argos. The overall style, and particularly that of the obverse portrait and the throne on the reverse, is most similar to the mints of Ionia in the 3rd century BC (see, e.g., Price pl. LVII, 1697 [Mytilene] and pl. LIX, 1874 [Ephesos]). Erythrai is known to use the club as a regular symbol, but always in conjunction with a monogram, and the controls of the related issues, noted above, also are not found there. Most problematic for attributing these coins to western Asia Minor is the appearance of a dotted border on the reverse of some examples, a characteristic that is not found at any of these mints in this period.