Alex III and bursting bubbles
Reid Goldsborough
an article in which they took a position in disagreement with mine
regarding whether or not Alexander the Great struck coins with his own
image on them. Their position, that the Herakles on Alexander III's
coins was Alexander himself, is not only in disagreement with my
position, but -- far more tellingly -- is also in disagreement with
virtually all of the world's most respected numismatists who've
written about this issue.
Michael and Anka's support for their contrarian, opposition stance
primarily rests with their reading and interpretation of history.
They've read some of the original sources -- the works of men such as
Arrian, Plutarchos, and Curtius -- and they seem to imply that no one
else has. And their knowledge of Greek history in general seems to be
lacking, as when they say that the cults of Dionysos and Orpheus were
foreign to the Athenians, Spartans, and other Greeks. Hello? The cult
of Dionysos was widespread throughout Greece and in fact existed in
Athens itself, with one sanctuary to Dionysos being on the south slope
of the Acropolis itself.
The support for the mainstream position, the established wisdom, rests
mostly with looking at coins. You know, what coin collectors enjoy
doing and what numismatic scholars are supposed to do. This, I'll
contend, is primarily where Michael and Anka went wrong. They spent so
much time with books that they didn't look enough at coins, not only
the coins of Alexander but also those that were struck by others both
before and after Alexander's time. They also went wrong in being so
overconfident in their position, is saying it was "obvious" that
they're right and everyone else is wrong. Hubris, in a word.
Michael and Anka said that the Herakles on Alexander's lifetime coins
is obviously Alexander himself. Yet this same Herakles appears on
coins that were struck before Alexander was born, on coins struck by
Perdikkas III c. 365-359, by Amyntas III c. 393-369, in Erythrai,
Ionia, c. 400, and in Herakleia, Lucania, c. 433-400. Alexander was a
great military genius, and near the end of his life he regarded
himself as a god (more hubris). He must have really been a god to have
figured out how to put his image on coins before he was born.
Michael and Anka also treat all the coins that Alexander struck as
being homogeneous. They pay lip service to the stylistic variations
but then discount them as being the result of sloppy die cutting.
Anybody who has actually looked at these coins enough knows that in
actuality the difference in style between, say, a Macedonian issue and
a Babylon issue is consistent and deliberate, not the result of what
Michael and Anka describe as "cartoonish" derivations from sloppy die
cutting.
All evidence, from ancient coinage as well as from ancient statuary
and paintings, is that Alexander's facial features included a
protruding brow, long and narrow nose, pursing upper lip, strong jaw,
thick neck, and fiery eyes. This contrasts sharply with the Herakles
on most of Alexander's lifetime coins, a portrait with a wider face,
higher cheekbone, and duller eyes.
Alexander's facial features do seem to appear on some of the coins of
his struck during his lifetime, particularly on some varieties that
Martin Price attributes to Babylon. But this is the exception, not the
rule. And despite Michael and Anka's claim to certainty, those who
have made careers studying this and related issues contend that there
is a great deal of uncertainty here, not the least of which is whether
or not Alexander himself directed or approved of his features
appearing on this Babylon coinage.
It's amazing the lengths that some people will go to try to win an
online debate. Michael and Anka seem to have put a great deal of work
and many, many hours into trying to support their contrarian,
oppositional, bubble-bursting position. For this, at least, they
deserve kudos. Cracking open a book keeps you, well, off the street.
<g>
Let the games begin...
--
Draped Busts: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/reidgold/draped_busts
The Saint: http://www.netaxs.com/~reidgold/saint
Deks, Fake and Real: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/reidgold/deks
Three Fourees: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/reidgold/fourees
mark
[snip]
>They've read some of the original sources -- the works of men such as
>Arrian, Plutarchos, and Curtius -- and they seem to imply that no one
>else has. And their knowledge of Greek history in general seems to be
>lacking, as when they say that the cults of Dionysos and Orpheus were
>foreign to the Athenians, Spartans, and other Greeks. Hello? The cult
>of Dionysos was widespread throughout Greece and in fact existed in
>Athens itself, with one sanctuary to Dionysos being on the south slope
>of the Acropolis itself.
Well, there was an old cult temple, and then the there was the theatre whose
remains are what are left today.
I suspect that this article, if it can be located, may add some insight to this
aspect of the issue of Alexander and Dionysos:
"Seleucus, Dionysos, or Alexander?" R.A. Hadley, Numismatic Chronicle 1974,
9-13.
[snip]
>All evidence, from ancient coinage as well as from ancient statuary
>and paintings, is that Alexander's facial features included a
>protruding brow, long and narrow nose, pursing upper lip, strong jaw,
>thick neck, and fiery eyes.
You mean like these:
http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/AlexImages/7.jpeg
http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/AlexImages/21.jpeg
>This contrasts sharply with the Herakles
>on most of Alexander's lifetime coins, a portrait with a wider face,
>higher cheekbone, and duller eyes.
Like these:
http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/AlexImages/8.jpeg
http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/AlexImages/20.jpeg
all which are supposedly the head of Alexander. We even have a blend of the two
images:
http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/AlexImages/29.jpeg
which is supposedly a rendition by a contemporary sculptor.
So the question then becomes which sculptor, artist, engraver or biographer do
we put the most faith in for giving us the most accurate picture and/or
description of what Alexander really looked like?
--
mark
"the future will be a lot like now, only later."
Reid Goldsborough
>So the question then becomes which sculptor, artist, engraver or biographer do
>we put the most faith in for giving us the most accurate picture and/or
>description of what Alexander really looked like?
Amazing. Real substance! I almost fell of my chair here. Thank you.
Really. And you pinpoint one of the difficulties about this subject,
that for the most part what remains are ancient copies of the
contemporary artwork, with the inevitable loss of fidelity that
accompanies any copy.
What you need to do, what numismatic scholars who have written about
this subject have done, is take the body of the evidence, lacking
though it might be in conclusivity, and make reasonable deductions
from it.
Martin Price and Otto Morkholm, the world's top Alexander III
numismatic specialists, and David Sear and Wayne Sayles, the world's
top ancient coin generalists, aren't wrong here. The one piece of
irrefutable proof in support of their positions and in opposition to
the wild speculations of Michael and Anka is that the Herakles
portrait, which Michael and Anka say was Alexander, existed on coins
before Alexander was born.
Phil DeMayo
>>> Got my July Celator yesterday. In it, to recap, Michael and Anka wrote an
article in which they took a position in disagreement with mine.....big
friggin' snip....<<<
Gee...can I review your fluff piece on High Relief Saints?
You forgot to explain to us how bi-sexual Alex was the most masculine man ever
to live.
>>>.....It's amazing the lengths that some people will go to try to win an
online debate....<<<
Let me get this straight....all of the effort they put into writing this
article was simply to try and win a debate with YOU???? That guy who told you
to crawl back in your fantasy world is a genius.
++++++++++
Phil DeMayo
When bidding online always sit on your helmet
Just say NO to counterfeits
mark
>prg...@aol.combustion (mark) wrote:
>
>>So the question then becomes which sculptor, artist, engraver or biographer
>do
>>we put the most faith in for giving us the most accurate picture and/or
>>description of what Alexander really looked like?
>What you need to do, what numismatic scholars who have written about
>this subject have done, is take the body of the evidence, lacking
>though it might be in conclusivity, and make reasonable deductions
>from it.
I'd rather have my original question answered first, and then use that
protrature information to re-examine all the various coins.
Deven Atkinson
>On 11 Jul 2002 02:46:51 GMT, flip...@aol.compulsion (Phil DeMayo)
>wrote:
>
>>Gee
>
>Gee, could you be any more transparent in wanting YET AGAIN to drag a
>substantive debate into the gutter. Every single time.
>
It was not a substantive debate. You were ranting about an article.
Deven Atkinson de...@bright.net
--
Penny Lane Numismatic - Categorized Web Links
http://www.bright.net/~deven/pennylane.htm
ANA Member #1197707
Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
>It was not a substantive debate. You were ranting about an article.
Am not, am not, nyeh nyeh, nyeh nyeh. This is what you and Phil want,
right?
Reid Goldsborough
>I'd rather have my original question answered first
I answered it. Let me repeat. What you need to do is look at the
entire body of the evidence. You don't base your evaluation on the
work of any one sculptor or artist. This applies as well to the
written sources, since for the most part they're secondhand as well.
Reid Goldsborough
<reid...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>They've read some of the original sources -- the works of men such as
>Arrian, Plutarchos, and Curtius -- and they seem to imply that no one
>else has.
I made a mistake here. Let me correct myself. I should have written
above that Michael and Anka read some of the "ancient" sources, not
some of the "original" sources. The works of the likes of Arrian,
Plutarchos, and Curtius, ancient though they might be, weren't the
original sources. The original source material, such as the royal
court journal of Alexander's expeditions, no longer exist. Neither do
the narratives of Ptolemy, Aristobulus, and others who where actually
there. What Arrian, who is considered to be the most reliable ancient
source, had access to were the works of Ptolemy and so on. Arrian,
though, was a Roman senator who lived several centuries later.
The point, again, is that these are secondhand sources, and you need
to be careful with them, as with the extant statuary and so on. You
can't just read ancient sources and use them to contend that you and
only you have found the truth. Some of these ancient sources, in fact,
are downright unreliable. Curtius, another Roman, is widely recognized
among those knowledgable about this area for being biased and
disseminating not truth but anti-Macedonia political propaganda.
mark
>I answered it. Let me repeat. What you need to do is look at the
>entire body of the evidence.
This statement above
>You don't base your evaluation on the
>work of any one sculptor or artist.
and this statement are contradictory, given that the "body of evidence" ought
to include all renditions and descriptions of Alexander's likeness.
There are sculptures of Alexander that were done before he ever appeared or was
mentioned on coins. I would think that these could be given pre-eminate
authority provided their provance can be established as well as the reliabilty
and skill of the scuptor be confirmed by other works.
IOW, I personally would not look to the coins as the leading indicator of what
Alexander really looked like.
IIRC, this is also the course of action taken with other individuals appear on
Reid Goldsborough
>>I answered it. Let me repeat. What you need to do is look at the
>>entire body of the evidence.
>
>This statement above
>
>>You don't base your evaluation on the
>>work of any one sculptor or artist.
>
>and this statement are contradictory, given that the "body of evidence" ought
>to include all renditions and descriptions of Alexander's likeness.
These statements not contradictory at all. When you look at any given
body of evidence, yes, you take into consideration everything. But you
don't necessarily place the same importance in all the pieces of
evidence. As I said before, with some you discard because of bias. Or
because of fraud (some of the letters and speeches attributed to
Alexander, it was later learned, were actually ancient forgeries).
With other pieces of evidence, far afield from the rest, you have to
make the judgment whether the exceptions are a mistake or disprove the
rule.
>IOW, I personally would not look to the coins as the leading indicator of what
>Alexander really looked like.
This is true.
Jorg Lueke
relevant question? I mean, when I look at life time issues, even from the
same mint, there is such a variation in style that it would be impossible to
come up with anything concrete. Which of the variations would be the "one"?
Also, why is there a Phillip II didrachm with a very similar Herakles?
Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
>Is the question of whether Alexander is actually portraid on his coinage a
>relevant question?
Sure. If you're an Alexander the Great nut. <g>
>I mean, when I look at life time issues, even from the
>same mint, there is such a variation in style that it would be impossible to
>come up with anything concrete.
There are differences in style within individual mints. But there are
far greater differences in style from one mint to another during his
lifetime. And there are even greater differences in style as you move
through the years. This is one of the things that makes collecting
this coinage interesting. And it's further support for the established
wisdom that the image is not of Alexander but of a generic Herakles
that was interpreted differently by different die engravers.
>Also, why is there a Phillip II didrachm with a very similar Herakles?
This is yet another coin minted before Alexander that portrays the
image that Michael and Anka contend is Alexander himself. (Philip II
also minted other denominations with this same image.)
gogu
news:aglin...@enews4.newsguy.com...
There may be an explanation. Ancient Macedonians always claimed Hercules to
be their ancestor. That's why their kings always tried to "enhance" this
link. Even Alexander the great did it and that's why in many of his
representations (and not only on coins) he looks very like Hercules. My
personal favorite portrait on coins is the one on the last-before-euro 100
drachmas coin.
rgrds
Reid Goldsborough
>My
>personal favorite portrait on coins is the one on the last-before-euro 100
>drachmas coin.
This modern Greek 100 drachmas coin, issued from 1990 to 2000, does
indeed feature a nice portrait ... of Alexander the Great. And it's
based not on the Herakles portrait on Alexander's own coins but on the
Alexander the Great portrait on the coins of Lysimachos. The portrait
on this modern Greek coin looks nothing like the Herakles on most of
Alexander's coin and is a very close (but not quite exact) facsimile
of the Alexander portrait on Lysimachos' coins. Along with the same
facial features, it has Alexander wearing a horn of Ammon, not a lion
skin headdress as does Herakles on Alexander's coins. Lysimachos was
one of the "diodochoi" -- Alexander's successors. Lysimachos is
sometimes described as one of Alexander's generals, sometimes as one
of his bodyguards, though he performed both duties.
gogu
news:85puiu4aqsu36v767...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 02:15:41 +0300, "gogu" <gola...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >My
> >personal favorite portrait on coins is the one on the last-before-euro
100
> >drachmas coin.
> This modern Greek 100 drachmas coin, issued from 1990 to 2000, does
> indeed feature a nice portrait ... of Alexander the Great. And it's
> based not on the Herakles portrait on Alexander's own coins but on the
> Alexander the Great portrait on the coins of Lysimachos. The portrait
> on this modern Greek coin looks nothing like the Herakles on most of
> Alexander's coin and is a very close (but not quite exact) facsimile
> of the Alexander portrait on Lysimachos' coins. Along with the same
> facial features, it has Alexander wearing a horn of Ammon, not a lion
> skin headdress as does Herakles on Alexander's coins. Lysimachos was
> one of the "diodochoi" -- Alexander's successors. Lysimachos is
> sometimes described as one of Alexander's generals, sometimes as one
> of his bodyguards, though he performed both duties.
Wow ... Reid! You *really* know many things on Alexander:-) Thanks for the
info; although I am a Greek I didn't know all those details on the relation
of Lysimachos' coins with the modern 100 drachmas coin (but I knew that
Alexander was wearing the Ammon Ra "horns" in that portrait...). Maybe
because I am not interested (yet...) on ancient coins?... Anyway, I just
wanted to say that the specific portrait is the most beautiful one, IMHO.
rgrds
Alan & Erin Williams
>
> Ο "Jorg Lueke" <jlu...@attbi.com> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
> news:aglin...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > Is the question of whether Alexander is actually portraid on his coinage a
> > relevant question? I mean, when I look at life time issues, even from the
> > same mint, there is such a variation in style that it would be impossible
> to
> > come up with anything concrete. Which of the variations would be the
> "one"?
> > Also, why is there a Phillip II didrachm with a very similar Herakles?
>
> There may be an explanation. Ancient Macedonians always claimed Hercules to
> be their ancestor. That's why their kings always tried to "enhance" this
> link. Even Alexander the great did it and that's why in many of his
> representations (and not only on coins) he looks very like Hercules.
I really enjoy Robert Graves "The Greek Myths". This is not a
'Bulfinches Mythology'!
Graves is worth reading repeatedly, straight through, to form an
understanding of how misinterpretation of early icons led to the Hesiod
catalogue of tangled myths.
There is an absolute correlation between imagery of local heroes, male
godhood and the current King which developed for reasons that will shock
any male chauvinist.
Read Graves.
My
> personal favorite portrait on coins is the one on the last-before-euro 100
> drachmas coin.
>
I'm not well-informed on art history, but have often seen pictures of a
?floor mosiac? that is claimed to be an accurate life portrait of
Alexander (on horseback and lightly bearded. I'd appreciate anyone who
knows the image I mean telling me where it is and when it was created
and whether or not my recollection of it is accurate.
Alan
'the Mediocre'
Alan & Erin Williams
>
> Ο "Jorg Lueke" <jlu...@attbi.com> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
> news:aglin...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > Is the question of whether Alexander is actually portraid on his coinage a
> > relevant question? I mean, when I look at life time issues, even from the
> > same mint, there is such a variation in style that it would be impossible
> to
> > come up with anything concrete. Which of the variations would be the
> "one"?
> > Also, why is there a Phillip II didrachm with a very similar Herakles?
>
> There may be an explanation. Ancient Macedonians always claimed Hercules to
> be their ancestor. That's why their kings always tried to "enhance" this
> link. Even Alexander the great did it and that's why in many of his
> representations (and not only on coins) he looks very like Hercules.
I really enjoy Robert Graves "The Greek Myths". This is not a
'Bulfinches Mythology'!
Graves is worth reading repeatedly, straight through, to form an
understanding of how misinterpretation of early icons led to the Hesiod
catalogue of tangled myths.
There is an absolute correlation between imagery of local heroes, male
godhood and the current King which developed for reasons that will shock
any male chauvinist.
Read Graves.
My
> personal favorite portrait on coins is the one on the last-before-euro 100
> drachmas coin.
>
I'm not well-informed on art history, but have often seen pictures of a
Reid Goldsborough
>Wow ... Reid! You *really* know many things on Alexander:-) Thanks for the
>info; although I am a Greek I didn't know all those details on the relation
>of Lysimachos' coins with the modern 100 drachmas coin (but I knew that
>Alexander was wearing the Ammon Ra "horns" in that portrait...). Maybe
>because I am not interested (yet...) on ancient coins?... Anyway, I just
>wanted to say that the specific portrait is the most beautiful one, IMHO.
If you like this modern Green 100 drachmas coin ... I'm going to try
to entice you to start collecting ancient coins here <g> ... you'll
really like the Lysimachos coins featuring the same portrait.
Alexander on the best of them has a fiery stare that seems to shout "I
want to rule the world."
The most common of these coins are the large silver tetradrachms. You
have to be careful here, because these coins of Lysimachos were minted
for nearly as long as the coins of Alexander. The lifetime issues are
the best styled, with the most artistry and the most realistic
portraits, though the posthumous issues can be interesting too, as
they were sometimes struck on large, irregular flans. As with
Alexander coinage, many dealers do not distinguish between lifetime
and posthumous issues even though the lifetime issues have a higher
market value.
You can also find gold staters and smaller silver drachms that use the
same obverse and reverse designs. The lifetime gold staters are
pricey, but the late posthumous ones are among the least expensive
ancient gold coins on the market, starting around $400 or $500, about
the price of lifetime silver tetradrachms.
The best place to get a feel for all of Lysimachos' coinage is
Wildwinds, specifically at this page:
http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/thrace/kings/lysimachos/i.html
--
gogu
> On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 03:09:03 +0300, "gogu" <gola...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Wow ... Reid! You *really* know many things on Alexander:-) Thanks for
the
> >info; although I am a Greek I didn't know all those details on the
relation
> >of Lysimachos' coins with the modern 100 drachmas coin (but I knew that
> >Alexander was wearing the Ammon Ra "horns" in that portrait...). Maybe
> >because I am not interested (yet...) on ancient coins?... Anyway, I just
> >wanted to say that the specific portrait is the most beautiful one, IMHO.
> If you like this modern Green 100 drachmas coin ... I'm going to try
> to entice you to start collecting ancient coins here <g> ...
:-) Difficult for the moment, Reid:-) I am focused on modern American
commemoratives, some modern gold coins/series and I want to start collecting
those beautiful Morgans. For later, who knows! Anyway, I have a few ancient
coins from my father, but not so many and not in so good condition.
> you'll
> really like the Lysimachos coins featuring the same portrait.
> Alexander on the best of them has a fiery stare that seems to shout "I
> want to rule the world."
And he succeeded! Without him, world would me much different.
> The most common of these coins are the large silver tetradrachms. You
> have to be careful here, because these coins of Lysimachos were minted
> for nearly as long as the coins of Alexander. The lifetime issues are
> the best styled, with the most artistry and the most realistic
> portraits, though the posthumous issues can be interesting too, as
> they were sometimes struck on large, irregular flans. As with
> Alexander coinage, many dealers do not distinguish between lifetime
> and posthumous issues even though the lifetime issues have a higher
> market value.
I've looked at them and they are really beautiful.
> You can also find gold staters and smaller silver drachms that use the
> same obverse and reverse designs. The lifetime gold staters are
> pricey,
I asked my dealer and he said that they cost a couple of thousand dollars...
> but the late posthumous ones are among the least expensive
> ancient gold coins on the market, starting around $400 or $500, about
> the price of lifetime silver tetradrachms.
>
> The best place to get a feel for all of Lysimachos' coinage is
> Wildwinds, specifically at this page:
>
> http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/thrace/kings/lysimachos/i.html
Really many info about coins of Lysimachos era. And the coin in picture is
in excellent condition:-)
rgrds
gogu
news:3D2F80E0...@mindspring.com...
I think you are talking about a mosaic representing Alexandros at the
Granikos battle (334 BC) riding Buchefalas.
Have a look here: http://studentwebs.coloradocollege.edu/~n_tillstrom/
rgrds
> Alan
> 'the Mediocre'
None is "mediocre"! We all have limitations, we don't know everything! This
is not a shame. It's a shame to think you know everything. Remember what
someone used to say: "just one thing I know; that I know nothing"...
Reid Goldsborough
>I asked my dealer and he said that they cost a couple of thousand dollars...
He's making a fantastic profit then. <g>
gogu
> On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 15:06:39 +0300, "gogu" <gola...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I asked my dealer and he said that they cost a couple of thousand
dollars...
> He's making a fantastic profit then. <g>
Yes, maybe. As I told you, here prices are not the same as in US. In an
other occasion I found that the price of a given coin was *double* than in
US!!! That's why I say that some times I am willing to pay a few more
dollars for s&h, just to have my coin at a price which is still less than in
Greece!
PS
The truth is that my dealer said that staters cost from $1.000 to
$2.000, according the grade of the coin. Now you know, it depends on dealer,
if he desperately needs cash he can lower his demand, etc...
rgrds
Reid Goldsborough
>The truth is that my dealer said that staters cost from $1.000 to
>$2.000, according the grade of the coin. Now you know, it depends on dealer,
>if he desperately needs cash he can lower his demand, etc...
The lifetime Lysimachos gold staters cost from three to four times
more than the late posthumous ones. These late posthumous ones start
at around $500 in the U.S. for VFs, $400 for aVFs. But these are the
very best prices, probably wholesales prices. Typical retail prices
are maybe $100 or $200 more. These coins have been fairly common on
the market over the past few years. There's some disagreement over
whether they were struck by the Pontic (Asia Minor) king Mithradates
the Great (the last Hellenistic king to challenge Rome) or the Roman
general Brutus (who assassinated Julius Caesar).
--
gogu
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 00:28:40 +0300, "gogu" <gola...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >The truth is that my dealer said that staters cost from $1.000 to
> >$2.000, according the grade of the coin. Now you know, it depends on
dealer,
> >if he desperately needs cash he can lower his demand, etc...
> The lifetime Lysimachos gold staters cost from three to four times
> more than the late posthumous ones. These late posthumous ones start
> at around $500 in the U.S. for VFs, $400 for aVFs.
Hey Reid! He was talking for the lifetime coins and in the best condition
the can be found!
But as I said: it greatly depends of how knowledgeable the buyer is, how
much the seller needs the cash, etc:-)
rgrds
Reid Goldsborough
>I'm guessing these most be the type that I saw a few of
>at our local coin club a year or two ago. One guy is
>rich, and had bought three of them for about a grand each,
>I think. He said that CNG (I think that's who) had loads
>to sell, and they would put out the crummy ones first
>before everyone realized that there was a whole new supply
>on the market. Thought that was interesting.
I agree. It's interesting how coin hoards get dispersed. I wonder
though if the lesser specimens in any given hoard get sold first.
Maybe. But I'd think the opposite were the case, that the better
specimens would be sold first, since pricing would be at its highest
and the better specimens would be better able to take advantage of
this. There can be a huge price differential with ancient coins
between an EF and a gEF or FDC, same as with, say, going from MS-64 to
MS-67 with an early U.S. coin.
Once when I was visiting CNG (I love CNG and have probably bought more
coins from them than from anybody), I saw tables piled with these
Istros staters, the ones with the inverted heads. I had just bought
one from CNG, maybe three weeks earlier, apparently one of the earlier
ones. I got a pretty good deal for a very nice coin. But the prices
for these coins dropped a bit, I believe, as this hoard was being
dispersed, so if I waited, I probably could have gotten a better deal.
Jorg Lueke
"Reid Goldsborough" <reid...@netaxs.com> wrote in message >
> Once when I was visiting CNG (I love CNG and have probably bought more
> coins from them than from anybody), I saw tables piled with these
> Istros staters, the ones with the inverted heads. I had just bought
> one from CNG, maybe three weeks earlier, apparently one of the earlier
> ones. I got a pretty good deal for a very nice coin.
You got a good deal from CNG, hmm, that's pretty impressive.
Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
>You got a good deal from CNG, hmm, that's pretty impressive.
CNG is OK, more than OK, in my book. I liked them a bit better when
they were still doing eBay auctions -- you could get some very good
deals on some very nice or at least nice enough coins from them that
way. They quit eBay when eBay stopped letting sellers include a link
directly in their auction description to their Web sites. CNG was
using eBay as a loss leader, according to Victor, as a way of leading
people to their Web site and then to their mail-bid and other
auctions.
Some of their coins, because of the CNG name, sell at full retail
prices, but you can still find stuff very reasonably with a little
luck. One of my best buys ever was an amazingly well preserved, well
centered, well struck, and well styled EF Alexander the Great lifetime
gold stater that CNG priced very, very reasonably.
Jorg Lueke
"Reid Goldsborough" <reid...@netaxs.com> wrote in message
news:bs77jukdd2dcs2b8u...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 21:59:26 -0500, "Jorg Lueke" <jlu...@attbi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >You got a good deal from CNG, hmm, that's pretty impressive.
>
> CNG is OK, more than OK, in my book. I liked them a bit better when
> they were still doing eBay auctions -- you could get some very good
> deals on some very nice or at least nice enough coins from them that
> way. They quit eBay when eBay stopped letting sellers include a link
> directly in their auction description to their Web sites. CNG was
> using eBay as a loss leader, according to Victor, as a way of leading
> people to their Web site and then to their mail-bid and other
> auctions.
>
> Some of their coins, because of the CNG name, sell at full retail
> prices, but you can still find stuff very reasonably with a little
> luck. One of my best buys ever was an amazingly well preserved, well
> centered, well struck, and well styled EF Alexander the Great lifetime
> gold stater that CNG priced very, very reasonably.
>
> --
I like visiting CNG as well. Sometimes they have some truly beautiful coins
together. I think at the spring ANA it was some choice Alex tets, but they
really do charge for the choice coins. Usually you can find the same thing
somewhere else for cheaper, but sometimes quality ios worth the price. I
just don't consider CNG to be a great place to look for bargains. I've bid
in some of their auctions, though I've never won. Come to think of it, I
think the only mail bid I've ever won is is Steve Haydn's. Hmm.
Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
>I like visiting CNG as well. Sometimes they have some truly beautiful coins
>together. I think at the spring ANA it was some choice Alex tets, but they
>really do charge for the choice coins. Usually you can find the same thing
>somewhere else for cheaper, but sometimes quality ios worth the price. I
>just don't consider CNG to be a great place to look for bargains.
The way that many dealers make money is to find discriminating buyers
who are willing to pay premiums for quality. The way many buyers find
bargains is to find nice enough coins priced right from these same
dealers before anybody else does. <g>