CYPRUS. Salamis. Gorgos II, circa 450-440/30 BC. Stater (Silver, 21 mm, 11.15 g, 1 h). 𐠞𐠪𐠐𐠵-𐠩𐠎𐠧𐠍𐠚 ('pa-si-le-wo-se ku-ru-ko-ne' in Cypriot syllabic script) Ram recumbent to left. Rev. 𐠞𐠪𐠐𐠵𐠩-𐠎𐠧𐠍𐠚 ('pa-si-le-wo-se ku-ru-ko-ne' in Cypriot syllabic script) Head of a ram to left. Nomos 19 (2019), 191 = Roma XX (2020), 273 (same obverse die). Extremely rare, the second known example of this highly important issue. Minor test cut on the reverse, otherwise, good very fine.

When we first offered this coin in 2019, its inscription 'pa-si-le-wo-se ku-ru-ko-ne' = King Gurugone (Gorgos) provided the first numismatic evidence for the existence of an as-yet unknown King Gorgos II, who must have ruled in Salamis around 450-440/3 BC. While earlier coins had hinted at this figure through abbreviated inscriptions, our example was the first to fully spell out the name. Gorgos II is likely another member of the Teukridid dynasty, unrecorded in the historical sources (for the alternative theory of a Punic usurper, see Roma XX (2020), 273). Following the publication of our auction catalogue in 2019, third-party ownership claims were raised, and out of caution, we decided to withhold the coin from auction. These issues have now been fully resolved, and we are pleased to offer the piece once again. This is all the more significant given the questionable commentary on lot 191 of Nomos 19 (2023), where our piece was hastily dismissed as an obvious forgery, accompanied by the incorrect claim that it had been withdrawn for this reason. Not only is this factually incorrect, but the argument also contains significant scholarly flaws: for instance, it is claimed that the reverse die is of 'exceptionally poor style,' the test cut 'supposedly ancient,' and the inscription 'unacceptably crude.' What is completely overlooked, however, is that our piece shares the same original obverse die as the example offered by Nomos. The claim that the reverse die is stylistically modern, while the obverse die is accepted as genuine, remains unexplained, and the contradiction is awkwardly glossed over with the vague phrase 'supposedly from the same obverse die as ours' - a statement that provides no clarity and merely highlights the confused reasoning of the author. In any case, there is no doubt about the authenticity of our piece. The reverse die, while different from that of the other example, is stylistically convincing, as is the test cut. The comment in Nomos is clearly not neutral, but seems to be based on an incomplete - or perhaps selectively considered - understanding of the circumstances that led us to temporarily withhold the coin. We are therefore delighted to once again present this important piece for sale, putting to rest the unfounded claims in a manner befitting scholarly debate.