Gwalior Rupee: Daulat Rao, Gwalior Fort Mint w/flower like mint mark, Km 57.2

Started by Abhay, September 04, 2010, 12:45:39 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Abhay

This One Rupee Coin from Gwalior Fort Mint in the name of Daulat Rao Scindia, has a Flower Like Mint Mark, just below the dagger. I have seen this mintmark for the first time on Gwalior Fort Coins.

Just see my last thread on the similar coin from Ujjain Mint.

Details Of the coin:

RY 41
Year AH 1213
Ruler: Daulat Rao Scindia
KM # 57.2
Coin No. 05 Page 44 Lingen & Wiggins

Abhay
INVESTING IN YESTERDAY

Salvete

Nice one, Engipress.
The earlier Fort coins (RY 28 onwards?) in my trays have a quatrefoil in that position.  Before that there was usually a dot.  I do not have a full date run, but RY 31 and 32 certainly have the quatrefoil, RY 39 has nothing in that position, but my RY 41 has a similar flower to the one on yours.  RYs 42 and 43 revert to having nothing there, and I do not see it on later years, either.  I would be interested if yours ahow any variation from that.  The floral marks associated with the mint name appear to change a little over time, as well.  I am inclined to view both marks as 'graffiti' rather than any form of distinguishing mark, but that is a personal point of view.  The mint mark of Gwafior Fort is generally agreed to be the sword over the 'J' of 'Jalus' I think.  RY 46 has a straight sword, reckoned to have been used while the British occupied the place for a while.  The Rana of Gohad also occupied it for a time, and the Gwalior Fort mint rupees of that occupation have the pistol mint mark of Gohad as well.  An interesting series that might yet hold more secrets.
Salvete
Ultimately, our coins are only comprehensible against the background of their historical context.

akona20

An interesting continuing discussion about possible 'graffit' or perhaps it is something more.

After everything we understand on a coin has been devised is what is left meaningful in any way? I am looking forward to reviewing this at some time in the future when a detailed study is made on various Mughal coins.

Salvete

That's a moot point, Sir.
There are obviously marks that are meaningful, such as daroga and mint marks.  Others were added to assist schroffs and revenue officers control values and exchange rates (not always honestly, it has to be said) and then we have things that we see on one coin, but not on similar coins, because there is no room for them.  Probably it's been added just to fill space accidentally left vacant on one die  - or was it.......?  Since we are not even in a position to state categorically that 'such and such a mark' is a Daroga mark in all cases, we certainly cannot rule out a lot of other marks by stating that they had no purpose, or can have no meaning to us.  All we need to do is find out exactly why they are there.  Good Luck with that one!   ;).  If we are reasonably confident that a certain mark on a particular coin is meaningless, we call it 'graffiti' for short - but there will come times when some graffiti is shown to have significance.  If a particular symbol is seen on the same coin with several consecutive dates, it would be a brave (or foolish) man who bet against it being significant.  But how will we be able to account for the dozens of pretty marks on Chhatarpur mint rupees?  Sometimes three or more combinations in a single year!  Good Luck with that one, too.  The further we gat from Mughal central control (both in time and spacially, I think) the more marks we see - especially in some series.  Can they all have a meaning?  Probably not, but most of this has not been looked at in great detail.  Maheshwari and Wiggins list 629 marks they found on Maratha coins - sometimes up to 6 on a single flan - and we all know of marks they missed.  So what price all of those being significant?  Studying control marks of any kind on most series is fraught with difficulties, but slowly we are getting there.  Your own special project may throw light on any number of previously ignored marks.  Let us fervently hope so.
Salvete
Ultimately, our coins are only comprehensible against the background of their historical context.

akona20

I somehow feel that deep within the writings of Indian historical economists such as Dr. Om Prakash (and others) that part of the key has been reported on but we just have not connected a few things together. But as you say Barry these things are fraught with danger but it is better that they be studied and at least comprehensively recorded than missed in a large volume of work.

Salvete

I cannot speak directly of the work of Dr Om Prakash, because I have not read his work, but you are right to seek gems in a mound of other material.  Perhaps I should pay more attention to his output.  But where to start?
Barry
Ultimately, our coins are only comprehensible against the background of their historical context.

Figleaf

Indian numismatics is not a field I am comfortable in, but I like symbols on coins. Let me start out with this piece:



The words in two lines are Danish and the mean "prison authority". Clear. The two oak leves below may be a decoration (sorry, I like that better than graffiti) or they may be a symbol for strength. You can probably set up a fun discussion about the meaning of the oak leaves, with appropriate food and drink, but you will not accomplish much. The third symbol is decoration. Or is it? Maybe the heart of the flower and the big dot on the oak leaves are visual aids for the engraver.

We are left with two symbols that probably are just decoration and maybe have some non-profound meaning that doesn't change the fact that this is a Danish prison token and all we need to figure that out is the text.

I believe this is how it will turn out with Indian coins. As we go deeper into understanding what they say, we may find that a dot is actually a secret mark, or a flower is a mintmaster mark and that is fine and fun and hey, we may even find the name of the man. Nevertheless, the rupee with his mintmark will still be a rupee, issued in the name of the same mughal ruler.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

Salvete

India had problems Denmark never had, Figleaf, and solved them in ways the Danes were never forced to consider.  Most of these marks are tied up with history, much of which is little understood, and a consideration of both together may assist in understanding all three.  There were templates and engravers' guide marks in Indian numismatics as in Danish, but generally speaking, these are a separate matter, and do not involve any kind of secrecy or codes.

Now we come to your own problem.  Oh! yes, you do have a problem.  You have diverted the discussion (something I have never done, of course) and you will now have to split the thread.  Don't expect any sympathy - you have brought this punishment upon yourself......

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