The numismatic chronicle and journal of the Royal Numismatic Society

390 J. MAVROGORDATO.
only tentative. On the whole, however, the fresh
evidence produced by Miss Baldwin is in favour of
placing some at least of these doubtful coins more or
less as I am doing. The two types that she illustrates
on PL iv under Nos. 20-1 are clearly connected by
their reverses, as she points out, with the anepigraphic
drachms Nos. 17-19 on the one hand, and with the
practically contemporary coins showing a dolphin,
Nos. 22-3, on the other. But their obverses, in my
opinion, as clearly indicate a connexion with these
later drachms. The comparatively large head of the
Sphinx on both coins, the turban-like arrangement of its
hair on No. 20, which is characteristic of the doubtful
group, and to which I have called attention under my
type No. 37, and the loose locks of hair on No. 21 are
all more suggestive of the drachms on Miss Baldwin's
PL v than of those among which they are placed.
Nos. 39-40. The style of these coins calls for no
further remark than has already been made. It is
sufficient to observe that they show a type of Sphinx
different both from that of the earlier anepigraphic
coins and of the signed tetradrachms. I do not feel
sure that the roughened ground in the incuse square
of No. 39 is artificially produced, although Miss Baldwin
(p. 47) makes no exception of it in tracing the development
of the artificially granulated ground.
Attention may be drawn once more to the rarity of
the hemidrachm No. 40, especially as it is one of the
chief features that differentiate this group from the
earlier of the two classes of drachms bearing names
in full.
No. 41. Of the coins with single letters those with
and K are fairly common, but those with E and A are