 |
| sixbid |
Starting price: 24.000 USD Estimate: 30.000 USD Result: 29.000 USDWhat is interesting is that the document presented to legitimise five other sales in the BBC documentary gives the weights of the five coins (decadrachms of Alex III) that Archbishop Alexios of Gaza received from the Hani family on 8th December 1967, the same day that he - reportedly -exported' one of them. Yet there is none listed there of a weight of 41.34 g. Were there two deposits of two lots of Alex III dekas that were retrieved from the Church after the Six Days War? Or is this document being overused? What is going on?
Lot 5. Macedonian Kingdom. Alexander III 'the Great'. Silver Decadrachm (41.34 g), 336-323 BC
Macedonian Kingdom. Alexander III 'the Great'. Silver Decadrachm (41.34 g), 336-323 BC. Babylon, lifetime issue, ca. 325-323 BC. Head of Herakles to right, wearing lion's skin headdress. Reverse: AΛEΞANΔPOY, Zeus seated left, holding eagle and scepter; below throne monogram, M below; in left field bee. Price 3618A; Mnemata 6. Extremely Rare. Original dark toning. NGC grade Choice XF; Strike: 5/5, Surface: 2/5. Fine Style scratches. [...]
Ex Tareq Hani Collection. Officially exported by Archbshop Alexios, Greek Orthodox Church, December 8, 1967.
Where did these 500 coins, some pictured on the dealer's website on 28th August 2018, come from? Where were they in 1967?
.
5 comments:
again, I'll explain you this one .
if you watch the bbc investigation you would definitely understand that there's one more will be on sale which means this one also they hided weights and Mm. on the documents because family doesn't accept to share the whole info.
anout ghazzat hoard and they Alexander DECADRACHMs they both were totally in different time than the discovered of new hoard .
oh. the funny thing that the photo you shared telling 500 DECADRACHMs . they are sooooo obvious are tetradrachm and one deca in the photo after the post.
do you know that by law your now libeling the whole fam name? i couldn't reach you by email as you hace no contacts information over here.
Mr Hani, as you can see on the screenshot it is taken from the BBC video, used here for comment and criticism. The contact information for the BBC Arabic service should be available "over there". It is not "libel by law" for an archaeologist to discuss an archaeological discovery. Is it?
In my discussion, I note that there must be other coins in the possession of the family that sold the item here. What does it mean in this collecting history: "Tareq Hani Collection. Officially exported by Archbshop Alexios, Greek Orthodox Church, December 8, 1967". Why would an archbishop be exporting coins on your behalf in 1967?
So this coin from your collection was in the hands of the Archbishop, who exported it, on the same day that your family deposited for safe keeping OTHER coins (which just happen to all be Alex III dekas) as shown in the signed document the family provided to the BBC?
I must say, I find this all very confusing.
What is the legal status of ancient silver coins found in the land (or the sea) of the Gaza region in or before December 1967? What laws apply to them, and is it really a case of "finders keepers"?
As I asked: "Where did these 500 coins pictured on the dealer's website on 28th August 2018 come from? Where were they in 1967?" How many hoards were there? Where are they now?
That's not "libel", it is a perfectly justifiable question in the public interest.
" this one also they hided weights and Mm. on the documents because family doesn't accept to share the whole info."
Who is this "they" who hid the information? The family? So, let me get this right, what you are now saying is that this "document" of 2005 that is presented is NOT in fact an original document of 2005 signed by the Archbishop that is the contemporary and irrefutable documentation of what was in the Church deposit between 1967 and 2005 but is a redacted version produced later, and in which "they" (presumably "the family that doesn't want to share the whole information") edited out the very information that would allow confirmation that specific coins were in that deposit? Is that what you are saying? So what value is that "document" at all? If that is the correct meaning of what you said, no matter who signed it, it has no value at all. Let's see the originals.
Why and how did he "export" that coin? Did the Archbishop "export" other cultural property in this period?
What is going on here?
Post a Comment