3
ARAB-SASANIAN, TEMP. ‘ABD AL-MALIK B. MARWAN (65-86h), Drachm, without mint or date, c. 75h.
Beschreibung
OBVERSE: In field: Armoured bust to right, holding sheathed sword in right hand, with name of the Sasanian ruler Khusraw in Pahlawi to right and gdh apzwt (‘may his glory increase’) to left. In border: bismillah la i- laha illa Allah wa – hdahu Muhammad ra – sul Allah, divided by stars-in-crescents except above the bust, where the star-in-crescent is replaced by a pellet-within-annulet. REVERSE: In field: Arch supported on columns, within which is a vertical barbed spear which has two pennants floating to the left just below the head; to right and left of the columns: khalifat Allah - amir al-mu’minin; to either side of the spear-shaft: nasr – Allah. In border: Four stars-in-crescents, with Pahlawi ap (‘praise’) at one o’clock. WEIGHT: 3.54g. REFERENCES: Treadwell 2005, 2 same dies; Walker p.24, ANS.5, same reverse die = Gaube 2.3.2.4. CONDITION: Very fine to good very fine, excessively rare and a type of considerable historical significance. One of the greatest and most sought-after rarities of the Arab-Sasanian series, the ‘Mihrab and ‘Anaza’ drachm has been rightly described as ‘extraordinary’ (Grabar, O., The Formation of Islamic Art, revised and enlarged edition, Yale, 1987), and ‘a very valuable little archaeological document’ (Miles, ‘Mihrab and ‘Anazah’). Many of the difficulties of interpreting this piece stem from the fact that it lacks both date and mint-name. Most scholars have assumed that it was struck at Damascus. Firstly, the mean weight of extant specimens is about 3.6-3.7g, which is somewhat lighter than the standard maintained at mints in the East but consistent with other Arab-Sasanian issues struck at Damascus in the early-mid 70s. Secondly, Damascus was the Umayyad capital where other experimental drachms were struck, including the Standing Caliph type with which the Mihrab and ‘Anaza drachms have often been compared. This may very well be correct, although it will be suggested below that other possibilities should also be considered. The latest study of this issue is that of Treadwell (2005), who plausibly interprets the imagery on this coin as a reaction to perceived problems with the design of the Standing Caliph drachms, which he argues must have been struck immediately before the Mihrab and ‘Anaza type. On this analysis, the Standing Caliph type was produced to accompany the Standing Caliph dinars and fulus introduced in Syria in the previous year. Treadwell notes that the gold and copper issues conformed to ‘the traditional numismatic formula that located the ruler on the obverse and a religious symbol on the reverse,’ while the ‘Standing Caliph’ drachm ‘contained two conflicting images of rulership…it is the Shahanshah’s imposing bust that dominates the imagery of the coin, not the cramped figure of the caliph on the reverse’ (Treadwell, p.11). The Mihrab and ‘Anaza type rectifies this by changing the design of the Sasanian bust so that it is recognisably the Caliph who appears on the obverse, and by replacing the standing figure on the reverse with an image of the Prophet’s spear mounted within an arch. Unfortunately, while this argument neatly explains the imagery, it clashes awkwardly with the legends. The bust which Treadwell identifies as the caliph himself is in fact labelled in Pahlawi as that of Khusraw, while the spear on the reverse carries the legends khalifat Allah – amir al-mu’minin. It is possible to argue, as Treadwell does, that ‘the Standing Caliph drachm was an unsuccessful hybrid that had been cobbled together at speed [and so] it would not be surprising if its hastily executed substitute were also deficient in some respects.’ But the addition of nasr Allah beside the spear on the reverse shows that the legends were not merely slavishly copied from a preceding type, and it seems hard to imagine that such sophisticated thought should have been given to the imagery only for the legends to have been applied so inappropriately. Furthermore, closer examination reveals that the images on both sides of this type are less straightforward then they may first appear. The figure on the obverse, whom Treadwell identified as being the caliph, wears a peculiar type of headgear, has cross-hatching across his breast to represent a different type of dress from the norm, and rather awkwardly carries a sheathed sword. Treadwell notes that the figure on the reverse of the Standing Caliph drachm, like that on the obverse of the gold and copper Standing Caliph types, similarly carries a sheathed sword, and he therefore suggests that this feature identifies the Mihrab and ‘Anaza bust as that of the caliph also. He has no explanation for the design of the crown or helmet, beyond noting that it is does not look like any other crown seen on the coinage of any Sasanian ruler. As for the cross-hatch pattern on the figure’s breast, Treadwell’s explanation is that this is chiefly an artistic rather than a naturalistic feature, designed to allow the sheathed sword to feature more prominently. Unfortunately, neither the cross-hatching nor the headgear looks even remotely like the dress of the Standing Caliph figure and so, much as with the problematic legends, these features do nothing to support to the suggestion that the Mihrab and ‘Anaza drachm was designed to improve and rectify the Standing Caliph type. The object on the reverse, to which Miles devoted most of his attention, has traditionally been identified as a spear or lance within a mihrab. It was Miles who refined this, specifiying that the spear was the ‘anaza of the Prophet himself, and suggesting rather more cautiously that the mihrab could be identified more precisely as the niche type (mihrab mujawwaf). If so, this coin would be the earliest depiction of this important Islamic architectural feature. Miles’ interpretation of the arch as a mihrab has met with a mixed reception among later scholars. Some have endorsed his view that the feature is indeed a Muslim mihrab rather than any other kind of arch, while others (including Treadwell) have pointed out that arches of this type are found on coins struck by all three Abrahamic religions. Connections with the Christian sacrum in Jerusalem (the arch which stood over the True Cross) have been suggested. In this way, this remarkable coin would have played its part in the so-called ‘war of images’ between the Christians and Muslims during this period. It is perhaps worth remembering, however, that the Mihrab and ‘Anaza type is not so securely tied to Damascus during the mid-70s Hijri as some might imply. Treadwell reports that Miles himself ‘did not consider that the coin, as he had described it, fitted smoothly into the series of Damascus silver coinage of the mid-690s.’ The type is not dated, and while the metrology does argue against these drachms having been struck as part of the main series produced in the East, Damascus was not the only place where lighter Arab-Sasanian drachms were being issued at this time. Drachms struck in Armenia and the North (see lot 1) during the 70s seem to have been struck to a weight standard in the region of 3.3g, and like the Mihrab and ‘Anaza type carry on the obverse a bust which is clearly Sasanian but is obviously different from the familiar Khusraw II type which had become the standard in the East for decades. Another curious feature of the Mihrab and ‘Anaza drachms is the large number of dies used: the seven specimens listed by Treadwell were struck from seven obverse and six reverse dies. Is this consistent with a short-lived, experimental type concocted hastily in Damascus and quickly abandoned, or might this be better explained in the context of a short-lived, specific event such as a military campaign?For the full version of this footnote please see the PDF at www.mortonandeden.com/pdfcats/85.pdf
Auktionsdetails
Versand
AGB & Wichtige Informationen
Stellen Sie dem Verkäufer eine Frage
OBVERSE: In field: Armoured bust to right, holding sheathed sword in right hand, with name of the Sasanian ruler Khusraw in Pahlawi to right and gdh apzwt (‘may his glory increase’) to left. In border: bismillah la i- laha illa Allah wa – hdahu Muhammad ra – sul Allah, divided by stars-in-crescents except above the bust, where the star-in-crescent is replaced by a pellet-within-annulet. REVERSE: In field: Arch supported on columns, within which is a vertical barbed spear which has two pennants floating to the left just below the head; to right and left of the columns: khalifat Allah - amir al-mu’minin; to either side of the spear-shaft: nasr – Allah. In border: Four stars-in-crescents, with Pahlawi ap (‘praise’) at one o’clock. WEIGHT: 3.54g. REFERENCES: Treadwell 2005, 2 same dies; Walker p.24, ANS.5, same reverse die = Gaube 2.3.2.4. CONDITION: Very fine to good very fine, excessively rare and a type of considerable historical significance. One of the greatest and most sought-after rarities of the Arab-Sasanian series, the ‘Mihrab and ‘Anaza’ drachm has been rightly described as ‘extraordinary’ (Grabar, O., The Formation of Islamic Art, revised and enlarged edition, Yale, 1987), and ‘a very valuable little archaeological document’ (Miles, ‘Mihrab and ‘Anazah’). Many of the difficulties of interpreting this piece stem from the fact that it lacks both date and mint-name. Most scholars have assumed that it was struck at Damascus. Firstly, the mean weight of extant specimens is about 3.6-3.7g, which is somewhat lighter than the standard maintained at mints in the East but consistent with other Arab-Sasanian issues struck at Damascus in the early-mid 70s. Secondly, Damascus was the Umayyad capital where other experimental drachms were struck, including the Standing Caliph type with which the Mihrab and ‘Anaza drachms have often been compared. This may very well be correct, although it will be suggested below that other possibilities should also be considered. The latest study of this issue is that of Treadwell (2005), who plausibly interprets the imagery on this coin as a reaction to perceived problems with the design of the Standing Caliph drachms, which he argues must have been struck immediately before the Mihrab and ‘Anaza type. On this analysis, the Standing Caliph type was produced to accompany the Standing Caliph dinars and fulus introduced in Syria in the previous year. Treadwell notes that the gold and copper issues conformed to ‘the traditional numismatic formula that located the ruler on the obverse and a religious symbol on the reverse,’ while the ‘Standing Caliph’ drachm ‘contained two conflicting images of rulership…it is the Shahanshah’s imposing bust that dominates the imagery of the coin, not the cramped figure of the caliph on the reverse’ (Treadwell, p.11). The Mihrab and ‘Anaza type rectifies this by changing the design of the Sasanian bust so that it is recognisably the Caliph who appears on the obverse, and by replacing the standing figure on the reverse with an image of the Prophet’s spear mounted within an arch. Unfortunately, while this argument neatly explains the imagery, it clashes awkwardly with the legends. The bust which Treadwell identifies as the caliph himself is in fact labelled in Pahlawi as that of Khusraw, while the spear on the reverse carries the legends khalifat Allah – amir al-mu’minin. It is possible to argue, as Treadwell does, that ‘the Standing Caliph drachm was an unsuccessful hybrid that had been cobbled together at speed [and so] it would not be surprising if its hastily executed substitute were also deficient in some respects.’ But the addition of nasr Allah beside the spear on the reverse shows that the legends were not merely slavishly copied from a preceding type, and it seems hard to imagine that such sophisticated thought should have been given to the imagery only for the legends to have been applied so inappropriately. Furthermore, closer examination reveals that the images on both sides of this type are less straightforward then they may first appear. The figure on the obverse, whom Treadwell identified as being the caliph, wears a peculiar type of headgear, has cross-hatching across his breast to represent a different type of dress from the norm, and rather awkwardly carries a sheathed sword. Treadwell notes that the figure on the reverse of the Standing Caliph drachm, like that on the obverse of the gold and copper Standing Caliph types, similarly carries a sheathed sword, and he therefore suggests that this feature identifies the Mihrab and ‘Anaza bust as that of the caliph also. He has no explanation for the design of the crown or helmet, beyond noting that it is does not look like any other crown seen on the coinage of any Sasanian ruler. As for the cross-hatch pattern on the figure’s breast, Treadwell’s explanation is that this is chiefly an artistic rather than a naturalistic feature, designed to allow the sheathed sword to feature more prominently. Unfortunately, neither the cross-hatching nor the headgear looks even remotely like the dress of the Standing Caliph figure and so, much as with the problematic legends, these features do nothing to support to the suggestion that the Mihrab and ‘Anaza drachm was designed to improve and rectify the Standing Caliph type. The object on the reverse, to which Miles devoted most of his attention, has traditionally been identified as a spear or lance within a mihrab. It was Miles who refined this, specifiying that the spear was the ‘anaza of the Prophet himself, and suggesting rather more cautiously that the mihrab could be identified more precisely as the niche type (mihrab mujawwaf). If so, this coin would be the earliest depiction of this important Islamic architectural feature. Miles’ interpretation of the arch as a mihrab has met with a mixed reception among later scholars. Some have endorsed his view that the feature is indeed a Muslim mihrab rather than any other kind of arch, while others (including Treadwell) have pointed out that arches of this type are found on coins struck by all three Abrahamic religions. Connections with the Christian sacrum in Jerusalem (the arch which stood over the True Cross) have been suggested. In this way, this remarkable coin would have played its part in the so-called ‘war of images’ between the Christians and Muslims during this period. It is perhaps worth remembering, however, that the Mihrab and ‘Anaza type is not so securely tied to Damascus during the mid-70s Hijri as some might imply. Treadwell reports that Miles himself ‘did not consider that the coin, as he had described it, fitted smoothly into the series of Damascus silver coinage of the mid-690s.’ The type is not dated, and while the metrology does argue against these drachms having been struck as part of the main series produced in the East, Damascus was not the only place where lighter Arab-Sasanian drachms were being issued at this time. Drachms struck in Armenia and the North (see lot 1) during the 70s seem to have been struck to a weight standard in the region of 3.3g, and like the Mihrab and ‘Anaza type carry on the obverse a bust which is clearly Sasanian but is obviously different from the familiar Khusraw II type which had become the standard in the East for decades. Another curious feature of the Mihrab and ‘Anaza drachms is the large number of dies used: the seven specimens listed by Treadwell were struck from seven obverse and six reverse dies. Is this consistent with a short-lived, experimental type concocted hastily in Damascus and quickly abandoned, or might this be better explained in the context of a short-lived, specific event such as a military campaign?For the full version of this footnote please see the PDF at www.mortonandeden.com/pdfcats/85.pdf
Important Coins of the Islamic World
Auktionsdatum
Lose: 1-117
Lose: 118-567
Ort der Versteigerung
Sotheby's, The Book Room
34-35 New Bond Street
London
W1A 2AA
United Kingdom
Für Morton & Eden Ltd. Versandinformtation bitte wählen Sie +44 (0)20 7493 5344.
Wichtige Informationen
Auction venue:
Sotheby's, in the Upper Grosvenor Gallery
The Aeolian Hall, Bloomfield Place
London W1A 2AA
Public viewing at:
Nash House
St George Street
London W1S 2FQ
AGB
Conditions of Business for Buyers
1. Introduction
(a) The contractual relationship of Morton & Eden Ltd. and Sellers with prospective Buyers is governed by:-
(i) these Conditions of Business for Buyers;
(ii) the Conditions of Business for Sellers displayed in the saleroom and available from Morton & Eden Ltd.; (iii) Morton & Eden Ltd.’s Authenticity Guarantee;
(iv) any additional notices and terms printed in the sale catalogue, in each case as amended by any saleroom notice or auctioneer's announcement.
(b) As auctioneer, Morton & Eden Ltd. acts as agent for the Seller. Occasionally, Morton & Eden Ltd. may own or have a financial interest in a lot.
2. Definitions "Bidder" is any person making, attempting or considering making a bid, including Buyers;
"Buyer" is the person who makes the highest bid or offer accepted by the auctioneer, including a Buyer’s principal when bidding as agent;
"Seller" is the person offering a lot for sale, including their agent, or executors;
“M&E” means Morton & Eden Ltd., auctioneers, 45 Maddox Street, London W1S 2PE, company number 4198353.
"Buyer’s Expenses" are any costs or expenses due to Morton & Eden Ltd. from the Buyer; "Buyer’s Premium" is the commission payable by the Buyer on the Hammer Price at the rates set out in the Important Information for Buyers;
"Hammer Price" is the highest bid for the Property accepted by the auctioneer at the auction or the post auction sale price;
"Purchase Price" is the Hammer Price plus applicable Buyer’s Premium and Buyer’s Expenses;
"Reserve Price" (where applicable) is the minimum Hammer Price at which the Seller has agreed to sell a lot.
The Buyer’s Premium, Buyer’s Expenses and Hammer Price are subject to VAT, where applicable.
3. Examination of Lots (a) M&E’s knowledge of lots is partly dependent on information provided by the Seller and M&E is unable to exercise exhaustive due diligence on each lot. Each lot is available for examination before sale. Bidders are responsible for carrying out examinations and research before sale to satisfy themselves over the condition of lots and accuracy of descriptions.
(b) All oral and/or written information provided to Bidders relating to lots, including descriptions in the catalogue, condition reports or elsewhere are statements of M&E’s opinion and not representations of fact. Estimates may not be relied on as a prediction of the selling price or value of the lot and may be revised from time to time at M&E’s absolute discretion.
4. Exclusions and limitations of liability to Buyers
(a) M&E shall refund the Purchase Price to the Buyer in circumstances where it deems that the lot is a Counterfeit, subject to the terms of M&E’s Authenticity Guarantee.
(b) Subject to Condition 4(a), neither M&E nor the Seller:-
(i) is liable for any errors or omissions in any oral or written information provided to Bidders by M&E, whether negligent or otherwise;
(ii) gives any guarantee or warranty to Bidders and any implied warranties and conditions are excluded (save in so far as such obligations cannot be excluded by English law), other than the express warranties given by the Seller to the Buyer (for which the Seller is solely responsible) under the Conditions of Business for Sellers;
(iii) accepts responsibility to Bidders for acts or omissions (whether negligent or otherwise) by M&E in connection with the conduct of auctions or for any matter relating to the sale of any lot.
(c) Without prejudice to Condition 4(b), any claim against M&E and/ or the Seller by a Bidder is limited to the Purchase Price for the relevant lot. Neither M&E nor the Seller shall be liable for any indirect or consequential losses.
(d) Nothing in Condition 4 shall exclude or limit the liability of M&E or the Seller for death or personal injury caused by the negligent acts or omissions of M&E or the Seller.
5. Bidding at Auction
(a) M&E has absolute discretion to refuse admission to the auction. Before sale, Bidders must complete a Registration Form and supply such information and references as M&E requires. Bidders are personally liable for their bid and are jointly and severally liable with their principal, if bidding as agent (in which case M&E’s prior and express consent must be obtained).
(b) M&E advises Bidders to attend the auction, but M&E will endeavour to execute absentee written bids provided that they are, in M&E’s opinion, received in sufficient time and in legible form.
(c) When available, written and telephone bidding is offered as a free service at the Bidder’s risk and subject to M&E’s other commitments; M&E is therefore not liable for failure to execute such bids. Telephone bidding may be recorded.
6. Import, Export and Copyright Restrictions M&E and the Seller make no representations or warranties as to whether any lot is subject to import, export or copyright restrictions. It is the Buyer's sole responsibility to obtain any copyright clearance or any necessary import, export or other licence required by law, including licenses required under the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).
7. Conduct of the Auction
(a) The auctioneer has discretion to refuse bids, withdraw or re-offer lots for sale (including after the fall of the hammer) if (s)he believes that there may be an error or dispute, and may also take such other action as (s)he reasonably deems necessary.
(b) The auctioneer will commence and advance the bidding in such increments as (s)he considers appropriate and is entitled to place bids on the Seller’s behalf up to the Reserve Price for the lot, where applicable.
(c) Subject to Condition 7(a), the contract between the Buyer and the Seller is concluded on the striking of the auctioneer's hammer.
(d) Any post-auction sale of lots shall incorporate these Conditions of Business.
8. Payment and Collection
(a) Unless otherwise agreed in advance, payment of the Purchase Price is due in pounds sterling immediately after the auction (the "Payment Date").
(b) Title in a lot will not pass to the Buyer until M&E has received the Purchase Price in cleared funds. M&E will generally not release a lot to a Buyer before payment. Earlier release shall not affect passing of title or the Buyer's obligation to pay the Purchase Price, as above.
(c) The refusal of any licence or permit required by law, as outlined in Condition 6, shall not affect the Buyer’s obligation to pay for the lot, as per Condition 8(a).
(d) The Buyer must arrange collection of lots within 10 working days of the auction. Purchased lots are at the Buyer's risk from the earlier of (i) collection or (ii) 10 working days after the auction. Until risk passes, M&E will compensate the Buyer for any loss or damage to the lot up to a maximum of the Purchase Price actually paid by the Buyer. M&E’s assumption of risk is subject to the exclusions detailed in Condition 5(d) of the Conditions of Business for Sellers.
(e) All packing and handling of lots is at the Buyer's risk. M&E will not be liable for any acts or omissions of third party packers or shippers.
9. Remedies for non-payment Without prejudice to any rights that the Seller may have, if the Buyer without prior agreement fails to make payment for the lot within 5 working days of the auction, M&E may in its sole discretion exercise 1 or more of the following remedies:-
(a) store the lot at its premises or elsewhere at the Buyer’s sole risk and expense;
(b) cancel the sale of the lot;
(c) set off any amounts owed to the Buyer by M&E against any amounts owed to M&E by the Buyer for the lot;
(d) reject future bids from the Buyer;
(e) charge interest at 8% per annum above Lloyds TSB Bank plc Base Rate from the Payment Date to the date that the Purchase Price is received in cleared funds;
(f) re-sell the lot by auction or privately, with estimates and reserves at M&E’s discretion, in which case the Buyer will be liable for any shortfall between the original Purchase Price and the amount achieved on re-sale, including all costs incurred in such re-sale;
(g) Exercise a lien over any Buyer’s Property in M&E’s possession, applying the sale proceeds to any amounts owed by the Buyer to M&E. M&E shall give the Buyer 14 days written notice before exercising such lien;
(h) commence legal proceedings to recover the Purchase Price for the lot, plus interest and legal costs;
(i) disclose the Buyer’s details to the Seller to enable the Seller to commence legal proceedings.
10. Failure to collect purchases
(a) If the Buyer pays the Purchase Price but does not collect the lot within 20 working days of the auction, the lot will be stored at the Buyer's expense and risk at M&E’s premises or in independent storage.
(b) If a lot is paid for but uncollected within 6 months of the auction, following 60 days written notice to the Buyer, M&E will re-sell the lot by auction or privately, with estimates and reserves at M&E’s discretion. The sale proceeds, less all M&E’s costs, will be forfeited unless collected by the Buyer within 2 years of the original auction.
11. Data Protection
(a) M&E will use information supplied by Bidders or otherwise obtained lawfully by M&E for the provision of auction related services, client administration, marketing and as otherwise required by law.
(b) By agreeing to these Conditions of Business, the Bidder agrees to the processing of their personal information and to the disclosure of such information to third parties world-wide for the purposes outlined in Condition 11(a) and to Sellers as per Condition 9(i).
12. Miscellaneous
(a) All images of lots, catalogue descriptions and all other materials produced by M&E are the copyright of M&E.
(b) These Conditions of Business are not assignable by any Buyer without M&E’s prior written consent, but are binding on Bidders' successors, assigns and representatives.
(c) The materials listed in Condition 1(a) set out the entire agreement between the parties.
(d) If any part of these Conditions of Business be held unenforceable, the remaining parts shall remain in full force and effect.
(e) These Conditions of Business shall be interpreted in accordance with English Law, under the exclusive jurisdiction of the English Courts, in favour of M&E.
Morton & Eden Ltd.’s Authenticity Guarantee
If Morton & Eden Ltd. sells an item of Property which is later shown to be a “Counterfeit”, subject to the terms below Morton & Eden Ltd. will rescind the sale and refund the Buyer the total amount paid by the Buyer to Morton & Eden Ltd. for that Property, up to a maximum of the Purchase Price.
The Guarantee lasts for two (2) years after the date of the relevant auction, is for the benefit of the Buyer only and is non-transferable. “Counterfeit” means an item of Property that in Morton & Eden Ltd.’s reasonable opinion is an imitation created with the intent to deceive over the authorship, origin, date, age, period, culture or source, where the correct description of such matters is not included in the catalogue description for the Property. Property shall not be considered Counterfeit solely because of any damage and/or restoration and/or modification work (including, but not limited to, traces of mounting, tooling or repatinating). Please note that this Guarantee does not apply if either:-
(i) the catalogue description was in accordance with the generally accepted opinions of scholars and experts at the date of the sale, or the catalogue description indicated that there was a conflict of such opinions; or
(ii) the only method of establishing at the date of the sale that the item was a Counterfeit would have been by means of processes not then generally available or accepted, unreasonably expensive or impractical; or likely to have caused damage to or loss in value to the Property (in Morton & Eden Ltd.’s reasonable opinion); or
(iii) there has been no material loss in value of the Property from its value had it accorded with its catalogue description.
To claim under this Guarantee, the Buyer must:-
(i) notify Morton & Eden Ltd. in writing within one (1) month of receiving any information that causes the Buyer to question the authenticity or attribution of the Property, specifying the lot number, date of the auction at which it was purchased and the reasons why it is believed to be Counterfeit; and
(ii) return the Property to Morton & Eden Ltd. in the same condition as at the date of sale and be able to transfer good title in the Property, free from any third party claims arising after the date of the sale.
Morton & Eden Ltd. has discretion to waive any of the above requirements. Morton & Eden Ltd. may require the Buyer to obtain at the Buyer's cost the reports of two independent and recognised experts in the relevant field and acceptable to Morton & Eden Ltd. Morton & Eden Ltd. shall not be bound by any reports produced by the Buyer, and reserves the right to seek additional expert advice at its own expense. In the event Morton & Eden Ltd. decides to rescind the sale under this Guarantee, it may refund to the Buyer the reasonable costs of up to two mutually approved independent expert reports, provided always that the costs of such reports have been approved in advance and in writing by Morton & Eden Ltd.
