Sale: Triton IX, Lot: 842. Estimate $1000.  Closing Date: Monday, 9 January 2006.  Sold For $900. This amount does not include the buyer’s fee.

MACEDON, Roman Protectorate. Aesillas, quaestor. Circa 90-70 BC. AR Tetradrachm (16.58 g, 12h). Uncertain mint. Struck circa 79-75 BC. CÆ • PR • MAKEDONWN, diademed head of Alexander III right / AESILLAS Q, money chest, club, and chair; all within wreath. Bauslaugh Group VII, dies O85/R301 (this coin listed as specimen (a) [NFA pedigree is erroneous]); De Callataÿ, Monnaies, dies D90/R257; AMNG III 213; SNG Ashmolean -; SNG Copenhagen -; Pozzi (Boutin) 2114. Near EF, dark find patina, a little off center. Rare. ($1000)

From the Robert Weimer Collection. Ex Waddell FPL 55 (Spring 1992), no. 40; Birkler & Waddell I (7 December 1979), lot 102.

Until the publication of R.A. Bauslaugh's study, it was traditionally thought that the CÆ • PR issues were the first of Aesillas' coinage. The traditional view was established by H. Gaebler, who argued for an attribution to the L. Julius Caesar who was consul of 90 BC and governor of Macedon from 94/3-93/2 BC (ZfN 33 [1902], pp. 171-2). More recently D.M. Lewis (NC 1962, pp. 297-299) and H. Mattingly (Chiron 9 [1979], pp. 158-160), based on the analysis of various overstrikes, proposed a general downdating of the series and gave the CÆ • PR issues to the Caesar who was consul of 64 BC, even though the historical record is lacking for this figure's pre-consular career. Regardless of the attribution to either Caesar, all had originally argued that this issue marked the beginning of the Aesillas coinage. Bauslaugh's die study and analysis of numerous hoards, however, has shown that this rare issue actually belongs later in the series. While he has conclusively debunked the previous chronology, the identification of CÆ • PR remains uncertain. The hoard evidence clearly shows that these issues must belong to the early 70s BC (Bauslaugh, pp. 97-110). This dating would rule out an identification with the Caesar who was consul in 64 AD if we accept the arguments of Lewis and Mattingly, who proposed that Caesar's governorship was in the period 69-67 BC. Noteworthy also are the comments of A. Burnett, who cautioned that CÆ may actually refer to a number of names other than Caesar (CH 7, p. 57). A re-examination of the evidence of Lewis and Mattingly may perhaps allow an earlier date for Caesar's governorship, but until such a redating occurs or new evidence emerges, the identity of the issuer remains uncertain.