Enigmatic Gwalior Rupees?

Started by Rangnath, December 30, 2008, 10:44:25 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Rangnath

I can not locate the following two rupees in the Standard Catalog.  I suspect that the first is an "enigmatic" rupee
similar to one we discussed earlier this year.
The second coin looks odd to me. Is it in fact from Gwalior? Is the "J" short for Jankoji or Jayaji or someone else?
Are those cannons on the reverse?  Where are the wheels?
richie

Overlord

The obverse of the second coin needs to be rotated 180 degrees. I think you are right and it is indeed a Rupee of Jankoji Rao. This matches the coin in my catalog (obverse showing a "lotus bud"). On the reverse I can see the Nagari letter "Ja". Unfortunately, my catalog is almost as old as me and so I'm not sure if the KM no. I quote would still be valid (it's KM 93 according to mine).

Oesho

The first coin is indeed the "enigmatic" rupee of 'Sheora' type, subject to an earlier discussion on this site.
In the next Journal of the ONS, Shailendra Bhandare is going the publish an extensive article on the history and coinage Jean-Baptista Filose and discusses the 'Seorha' type issues and suggests different mints for the various types. So watch out for this publication.
The other rupee is of Isagarh mint (Fort of Jesus), struck under authority of Jankoji Rao (KM#93). The name Isagarh is given by Filose to this place.

Rangnath

Thanks Overlord, and thanks Oesho.
I should never place two coins together under one post.  It can get confusing. 

On the 'enigmatic' coin:

I will look out for the article. Sounds exciting.  Filose was rather important in Sindhia history, wasn't he?

On the Jankoji Rao rupee:
I placed the obverse "upside down" becaue of the persian "2" (is it a two?) and because the mint mark seemed upside down.  :-[  Oh well.  Nice work Overlord.
richie

Overlord

It's nice to know that at least some of the numbers in my old catalog are still valid  :)

Rangnath

In regards to Gwalior, I think most are valid, but the order system of Km numbers is absolutely CRAZY. And the decisions on what constitutes a "type" as opposed to a "variety" sometimes seems arbitrary.
richie

BC Numismatics

Quote from: Rangnath on January 01, 2009, 08:02:20 PM
In regards to Gwalior, I think most are valid, but the order system of Km numbers is absolutely CRAZY. And the decisions on what constitutes a "type" as opposed to a "variety" sometimes seems arbitrary.
richie

Richie,
  The Indian Princely States' chapters need to be totally rewritten,revised,& recompiled,especially in the case of the Gwaliori coins.

Things have to be taken into account that some states were striking hammered coins right up to the 1940's.

Aidan.

Salvete

Richie,
The frist of these two rupees has been identified correctly and fully by Oesho some time ago.  There seems no doubt about the attribution, so would it make sense to split the thread and put that coin where it should be?  The Filose paper was published some time ago, in JONS 198 (winter 2009 on p. 16) and the first coin is Seohra type 2 var. 3.  I really cannot recognise the Isagarh coin from the illustrations in the article, and perhaps Oesho can find a minute to check it again for us, please?

Thanks very much Oesho and Rangnath

Salvete
Ultimately, our coins are only comprehensible against the background of their historical context.

Oesho

QuoteI really cannot recognise the Isagarh coin from the illustrations in the article
It's a rupee of Jankoji Rao (AD1827-1843) with debased Muhammad Akbar II legend with lotus bud added over Sahib. The reverse shows a bow and arrow as well as a fly-whisk above to the left. Ja of Jankoji between Jalus and the symbols. Reference: L/W #08 and KM#93.

Salvete

Ultimately, our coins are only comprehensible against the background of their historical context.

Rangnath

Thanks Salvete and Oesho.
I am time deprived at the moment. Consider this reply a "marker". I intend to split the thread if possible later.
Posting diverse coins in one thread is NOT desirable! Who was responsible for this one anyway?  ::)
richie