Diobol From Moesia, Istros

Based on what Albert was saying about an altered Persian (Persic) standard for these coins rather than an Attic standard, here is a revised table of weights for the drachm and fractions of these coins:


................Attic...Persic
drachm..........4.3.....5.702
tetrobol........2.85....3.8
triobol.........2.15....2.85
diobol..........1.43....1.90
trihemiobol.....1.07....1.43
obol............0.72....0.95
hemiobol........0.36....0.48


I cannot yet account for examples of all these denominations in the revised standard.

But on the basis of this it would appear that the OP coin, at 1.07 grams, is neither a diobol nor a trihemiobol, but is closest to the weight of an obol. If these numbers are correct, then the coin Albert posted is actually an obol too, since it is much closer to .95g than 1.43.

The coin I posted just comes in at 1.43, the revised weight of a trihemiobol.

How does this look to you Albert?

I like the comparative chart you gave, which was done by Seaby and Kozolubski for the second edition. When David Sear took over he replaced it with the chart I gave earlier from the third edition.

Thanks for the tables suggestion, but I've been using the conversion tables in Historia Nummorum. They are identical to the BMC tables.

Barclay Head devotes a great deal of time to discussing the weight standards by region and municipality. For Sinope he proposed a reduced Phoenician standard, with a stater of 100-80 grains, so for the period 453-375 he describes a silver piece with the eagle and dolphin reverse at 93-80 grains.



For Istros he prefers the same standard as Sinope, but with a stater of 108 grains and a fraction at 22 grains. Not sure when the shift to seeing it as a modified Persic standard came about, but he and Gardner both mention that there is a complex connection between the Phoenician and Persic standards.

I just picked up a fraction at 16 1/2 grains (1.07g) from a seller on Vcoins, but I am a little worried about the graininess/pitting of the surfaces:




A few days ago I picked up a small fractional of 6.75 grains (0.43g) which will now give me examples of a hemiobol, obol, trihemiobol, and drachm. I have seen one example that weighs correctly for a diobol (1.9g) but it looks like a fake to me. Care to take a look?

Nothing to be proud of, I'm afraid, and I have some doubts about the pitting of the surfaces. I will see when it arrives, but here is the seller's pic, slightly enlarged:



It looks like the eagle has made some headway "eating" the head of the dolphin (corrosion, of course) and I am curious about the emblem below the eagle at right. A theta, I expect. At least the size and weight are correct.

I also picked up two other coins that were offered as hemiobols, but this seller did not give the sizes. Both were very inexpensive, and for good reason, but appear to be in good silver. The first has very rough surfaces, which may appear worse in a close up image than they do in hand. But if the weight is correct, then it's better than nothing (maybe).



The third coin is the best of the three, but I suspect that it is too large for a hemiobol. If it is correct for a hemiobol, then it will have to do. But if it is too heavy, then I have my eye on a very presentable example.



Those are the hemiobols. I am starting to work on getting examples of the parallel stater and its predecessor from Sinope. I will let you know what comes of that.

Here is a remarkable example of the earliest stater of 93 grains (6.02g) that Head regards as the beginning of the eagle and dolphin motif. The seller wants $5000 for it, which is way out of range, but the coin is a showpiece.



In his description of the obverse for this early type, Head notes, "Eagle's head, often of very rude work." However, this example of the coin shows the type as it was meant to look. The head of the eagle dominates the flan, with a tiny dolphin beneath it. In this example the beak, eye and feathers are easily recognizable. The reverse is supposed to be a quadripartite incuse square in which two opposing quarters are deeply sunk. But even in this well preserved coin, the punch looks to me more like a bipartite incuse punch of squares, with a monogram or letter lambda in one quadrant.

The example I acquired is much more modest in appearance and more typical of what one finds. This example weighs 94 grains (6.09g).



Here the feathering surrounds the shape corresponding to the eagle's head, and the line of the beak is the only clear feature. But a well defined, diminutive dolphin is clearly visible below. As before the reverse incuse punch appears bipartite with a pellet in one of the squares.

Presumably, the eagle and dolphin motif was descended from this, since it is the next type encountered in the staters of Sinope. These later examples, in the range 93-80 grains, are what first appear as silver staters at Istros.

Just came back to look at this post and see it has turned into a fascinating thread, full of information.

Maybe we should take some of the information and make a sticky thread explaining the weights, denominations and standards of ancient coinage?

your first coin has a very nice reverse .Can the Theta not be an italic epsilon ? for my old eyes , lower right it seems open to me ,upper right is doubtful .
The two others coins are very intersting in the way it completes your collection and you can always later replace them .
For the Sinope coin , it is a very nice coin you have there.You were very luckly to find it so soon.The reverse makes me think at the coins of Chersonesos,with the lion forepart on the obverse, and the incuse quadripartite incuse with two quarters deeply sunk ,and different signs or monograms .How are the smaller denominations ?
Istros was situated in the delta of the Danube river,at the Black Sea . The first Greek name for the sea was Pontos axeinos and it changed when they began to found cities in Pontas euxeinos = a sea where everybody is welcome (euxeinos) and where before the sea was not hospitable (I don t know a better English word) .I don t know why it is called now the Black Sea , for me the color is the color of a normal sea with white sand ,but maybe I was there in Roumenia in the wrong season (summer 1967).albert

thanks David for the explanation on the colours .It is all new for me.Do you think there is an interest for a thread explaining weights ...? albert