Three Rare Issues from the Seleucus I Hoard

CNG 84, Lot: 296. Estimate $1000. Sold for $1800. This amount does not include the buyer’s fee.

KINGS of MACEDON. temp. Antigonos I Monophthalmos – Lysimachos. Circa 310-290 BC. AR Tetradrachm (27mm, 17.17 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,” RN 1990, pl. VI, 17 (same obv. die); Seleucus I Hoard 396a (this coin, illustrated). Superb EF, small spot of toning on reverse edge. Extremely rare, one of six known.

From the Patrick H.C. Tan Collection. Ex Classical Numismatic Group 70 (21 September 2005), lot 309; Seleucus I Hoard (CH X [forthcoming]).

Rousseva’s example from the Čerpaev hoard (IGCH 468) is apparently the only example of this type published. 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], akrostolion/serpent [Triton XI, 119 = Gemini III, 98], and kuathos/ladle [Seleucus I Hoard 398 – the following lot in this sale]) 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 of them, a characteristic that is not found at any of these mints in this period.