Here's a piece you don't see every day. Little is known about it. Scholten says it was struck in Europe. I agree and would add that the funny Dutch excludes that it was struck in the Netherlands.
Peter
It's an attractive piece. Do you own it, Peter?
Yes, this one is in my collection. I speculated a lot about its provenance (Birmingham?) and why it's so scarce. One theory has it that they were struck to see in practice what it would cost to strike the Singapore merchant tokens.
Peter
Hi Peter,
the funny thing is that you always see them XF or better
regards
RVCOINS
Indeed, which reinforces the thought that they weren't struck to be circulated, but for some other purpose.
Peter
Quote from: Figleaf on September 11, 2009, 07:43:22 PM
Yes, this one is in my collection. I speculated a lot about its provenance (Birmingham?) and why it's so scarce. One theory has it that they were struck to see in practice what it would cost to strike the Singapore merchant tokens.
Peter
Interesting theory.
I found at least 1 type of singapore merchant token trial pattern not listed by Pridmore and Scholten.
(Morton & Eden Auction 2 Lot No 377, James Watt Jr Collection, November 2002)
Related with John Colville and struck at Soho 1835.
Since it seems swan duit appeared in Netherland much more than where else,
and Pridmore didn't mention any related information from Soho Mint documents (he will surely mention this if he found any),
I think it's also possible that Dutch merchants made this as trial pattern imitating NEI coin, just as English merchant made 'Island of Sumatra' series imitating EIC official Sumatra 1804 series.
sinial
The problem is that you can only say Nederlandsch Indië in Dutch. You will not hear a Dutchman say Indië Nederlandsch, as it is put on the token. It's the other way around in latin (Indiae Batavorum). To be of Dutch origin, you have to think that the error was made on purpose, which seems a bit convoluted, but not entirely impossible.
In addition, you'd have to posit a private mint, since the Utrecht mint was way too official (and pompous) to fill private orders. Since the 19th century Dutch tokens we know of (Bleyensteinse duit, dated 1819) were struck in Frankfurt, that doesn't sound likely either. Also, these tokens could not have been shipped directly to the Netherlands East Indies, since customs would certainly have impounded them. Shipping them to Singapore must have been eminently possible, though.
Peter
Pridmore described several cases Matthew Boulton refused order that he thought will be forgery of offical EIC/NEI coins.
And he consider this as reason of the meaningless legend 'Island of Sultana'.
If swan duit was made on purpose, may be similar reason.
Anyway, the swan duit seems very close to my main subject, I will try to obtain one. ;D
Quote from: sinial on September 12, 2009, 05:48:20 PM
I found at least 1 type of singapore merchant token trial pattern not listed by Pridmore and Scholten.
(Morton & Eden Auction 2 Lot No 377, James Watt Jr Collection, November 2002)
Related with John Colville and struck at Soho 1835.
Have you kept a picture?
Peter
There is a pdf catalog of the auction. You may download from http://www.mortonandeden.com/ (http://www.mortonandeden.com/)
sinial
The catalogue may disappear from the net and it won't turn up in Google searches, so here it is for posterity ;) It is all a bit speculative. If Pridmore and Scholten (and, therefore, Moquette and the Bataviaasch Genootschap) missed it, it will not have reached Asia and it probably didn't reach the Netherlands. Soho mint seems a likely conclusion, though. The climbing pussy might just as well have been derived from the arms of Scotland (Colville was Scottish).
377 An Uncertain Sample Piece, 1835, in copper and of proof quality, perhaps associated with the extensive series of Singapore Merchants' tokens struck by Soho in the 1830s, obv., a shield showing a tiger rampant, coronet above, rev., legend NON OBLI VISCAR 1835., beaded border on both sides, edge plain, 16 mm., 1.57 g, one or two marks but virtually mint state, in shells and paper wrapper inscribed "Dutch Coin" £80-120
The bearing of the heraldic tiger resembles that of the lion supporters of the East India Company's arms and, to a lesser extent, the Dutch lion. The legend Non Obliviscar, meaning "I will not forget", is inter alia the motto of the Colville family. The overall arrangement of the coin bears some resemblance to contemporary Dutch productions, albeit in a smaller module, and it may be observed that the Soho inscriptions throughout this collection are generally reliable. It is suggested that this may be a Soho sample for consideration as a replacement for, or complement to, the various Dutch coins (and Birmingham imitations thereof) that were widely used by the Singapore merchants at the time.
Pridmore (pp. 147-151 et seq.) gives a detailed historical account but neither he nor Scholten appear to have noted this piece. The reverse legend on the sample might well have been chosen as a compliment to John Colville, the Scottish entrepreneur who ordered the first Singapore tokens from Soho in 1831. By 1847 he, with others, was to have commissioned a total of over 50,000,000 pieces from Soho for export to Singapore.
Source: Morton & Eden (http://www.mortonandeden.com/) (Sotheby) Auction 2 Lot No 377, James Watt Jr. Collection, November 2002
Peter
Saran Singh didn't mentioned anything about the trial pattern.
And I found nothing in Millies and Netscher/Van der Chijs (exactly, in their plate ;D).
But found Netscher/Van der Chijs have a swan duit in their PL. XXVII No. 257.
Do you know what Netscher/Van der Chijs recorded about swan duit?
sinial
The only reference I found (page 214) contains nothing new (my translation):
On plate XXVII with number 257 we have supplied an illustration of the so-called swan duit. We have been unable to discover what the intention of this coin was, it was not produced in any great quantity but is also not particularly rare. According to Van Orden en Schinkel, bijdragen voor de penningkunde, page 43 it is a trial "for the so-called mintage in East-India, to learn about the determination of the cost of production thereof. A number of engravers have delivered similar trials [footnote: in the article quoted, two coins are described and classified as patterns for East-India, one of which has the same obverse as the coin we illustrate with number 257. Otherwise, they have no indication as being meant for the Indies, so we have not included them in this work, all the more because the feelings of Van Orden and Schinkel (on these being for the Netherlands East Indies) is a guess only.] If we should err in this opinion, then we would appreciate any correction from those with more expertise" We echo this call (for more information) from Van Orden and Schinkel as the only thing we know about this coin is that it exists.
Peter
Thank you very much.
Maybe I should go to learn Dutch and French seriously. ^_^
sinial
Finally got mine from Schulman.
the same variety
Congratulations! This is a very nice example.
Peter
This was sold at the Java Auction 2010 for 1.75 million rupiah (about US$195), the opening price.
(http://img816.imageshack.us/img816/3379/obverse.jpg)
(http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/7712/reverseq.jpg)
In auctions held in the Netherlands, they go for €20 to 50, depending on grade. Only unc proofs fetch a lot more. Google "zwaantjesduit" for some examples and look for Scholten 659a.
Peter
Quote from: Figleaf on August 22, 2010, 12:44:16 AM
In auctions held in the Netherlands, they go for €20 to 50, depending on grade. Only unc proofs fetch a lot more. Google "zwaantjesduit" for some examples and look for Scholten 659a.
Peter
At the Java Auction most stuff goes for the (high) opening bids. I suspect there are a lot of cash-rich, knowledge-poor bidders. It is a very poor place to buy things, generally.
Recent ebay auction, €46.50: http://www.webcitation.org/5s9w0K4mj
Finally, after nearly 5 years, here it is. ;D
Quote from: Figleaf on September 13, 2009, 02:18:33 PM
The catalogue may disappear from the net and it won't turn up in Google searches, so here it is for posterity ;) It is all a bit speculative. If Pridmore and Scholten (and, therefore, Moquette and the Bataviaasch Genootschap) missed it, it will not have reached Asia and it probably didn't reach the Netherlands. Soho mint seems a likely conclusion, though. The climbing pussy might just as well have been derived from the arms of Scotland (Colville was Scottish).
Thank you, sinial. Excellent thread, this.
Peter
Some thoughts about the swan ...
A legend tells the following story:
The Czech theologian Johan Hus standing on the stake said: "You are now burning a goose, but 100 years later there will be a swan."
Explanation: "Hus" is the Czech word for "goose" and 100 years later Martin Luther appeared in history.
So the swan became a Lutheran symbol. Indeed you will find a swan instead of a cock or a cross on some Lutheran churches in Northern Germany (for example in Carolinensiel).
As nobody seems to have a clue about the swan, I would guess, it was made in a Lutheran town, country or area, perhaps even for a Lutheran group of settlers ...
Here we go.
Another possible Singapore Merchant Token type, Scholten 279/Bucknill 332, Pridmore and Saran Singh unlisted.
Scholten listed as 'bronzed pattern of finished workmanship'.
Bucknill listed as 'Moquette mentions and figures a similar specimen, this he thinks was an attempt at a pattern for a counterfeit and was probably producted at Birmingham in England. Mr. Schulman, whilst agreeing that specimens of this kind are patterns, believes them to be merely genuine patterns not struck either at Birmingham or with any fraudulent design and that for some reason unknown the novel type was not adopted for the currency.'
Any further information?
Very interesting, Sinial! I can see why Bucknill (chauvinistically, perhaps) thought of Birmingham: they had excellent presses. However, by 1791, Dutch mints were being equipped with good presses also. The very best "provincial" coins date from this period. Thinking of the Birmingham copies of NEI coins, they had an easy way to be recognised, some spelling error or so. This prototype's most striking difference is the different font for the date. In my eyes, that would be an argument against Birmingham.
Peter
mine :D
(http://www.indoeang.com/share/8714-1.jpg)
Impressive!!! :o
Aditya
Oeang bagoes.
Peter