Thessaly, Larissa AR Hemiobol(?). Circa 450-430 BC. Head of Jason(?) to right, wearing petasos / Leech fibulae (cloak pin), or petasos(?), Λ-Α-Ρ around, above caduceus to right; all within shallow square incuse. CNG E-170, lot 42 = BCD Thessaly I, 1119 = HGC 4, 509; otherwise unpublished. 0.46g, 9mm, 12h.

Near Extremely Fine; original 'find' patina. Of the highest rarity, apparently the second known example of the type.

From the Marnix Collection.

Jason was the son of Aison, the rightful king of Thessaly, who had been usurped and imprisoned by his half-brother Pelias. Aison sent Jason into the Thessalian countryside to be educated by the great centaur Chiron, under whose guidance he lived and grew to manhood. Meanwhile, it had been prophesied to Pelias that he would be overthrown by a man wearing one sandal.

When at last Jason returned to Iolchos to claim the throne, having lost one sandal in the river Anauros while helping an aged woman (the goddess Hera in disguise) across it, he was announced as a man wearing one sandal. Pelias, facing his own downfall, agreed to step aside on the condition that Jason seek out and return with the Golden Fleece from the kingdom of Kolchis.

When this type first appeared on the market, the CNG cataloguer associated it with the obols of Larissa that depict Jason's sandal (cf. BCD Thessaly I, 1097; BCD Thessaly II, 140; HGC 4, 403), deciding that the reverse type made obscure reference to the Golden Fleece itself: the caduceus was shown as the symbol of Hermes, who as shepherd-god provided the ram which bore the fleece, while the cloak pin was to hold the fleece in place when worn.

However, when the coin next came up for sale in the first part of the BCD Thessaly Collection it was re-dated somewhat later on stylistic grounds (cf. BCD Thessaly I, 1119), with the cataloguer arguing that the cloak pin described previously was in fact a petasos seen from the side. The existence of hemiobols of Larissa showing the petasos dating to the first quarter of the fifth century (cf. HGC 4, 406), thus contemporary with the obols depicting the sandal, gives this suggestion some credence, but not enough for HGC who note that the "Thessalian attribution [is] dubious" (cf. HGC 4, 509).