1
Unidentified coins / Re: Religious token - Shiite
« Last post by @josephjk on November 11, 2019, 11:54:59 PM »Thank you very much Saro!
Recent Posts
2
Islamic world / Qarakhanid dirham 574AH
« Last post by Figleaf on November 11, 2019, 11:40:09 PM »This coin is not in MWI or on the Zeno site. I am posting it for reference. Here is how Toofast identified it:
Indeed, this is a late qarakhanid broad dirham. The date is 574 AH. The mint is not clear on your specimen. This coin is n.1175 in the Kochev's corpus (the standard work on Qarakhanid coinage), and the mint of this coin is marked by '?' there.
Fortunately, the title and the name of a ruler are known. They are 'Muhammad Bugra Khaqan ' in the field of the reverse (right image) and 'Tadj ad-duniya wa-d-din' in the margin.
The bad new is that this coin is the only evidence of the existence of this person. So, we only know that he was a member of the dynasty who reined in the uncertain appanage in 1178-1179.
The Qarakhanid empire split in an Eastern and a Western part between 406 and 449 AH. That was the beginning of the end for the Qarakhanids, whose lands were falling apart in slow motion, to be succeeded eventually by the Khwarezmshahs. In the 6th century, there was so much chaos and confusion that there is not even agreement on when the known Khans reigned.
Bugra is the family name used by the earliest Qarakhanid khans. Khaqan is great khan, khan of khans. Pretty impressive title. So why don't we know anything about this ruler?
Here is some of my speculation. I think Muhammad was a princeling who thought big. He wanted to restore order, perhaps even rejoin the two parts of the empire. He met with enough initial success to be able to strike this coin. He used his clan name to support his claim with legitimacy and the title to advertise his ambition. Yet his luck ran out fairly quickly. Perhaps he was murdered or he fell in a skirmish. Whatever the case, his successor may have made an effort to remove his name wherever it occurred, something like a Roman damnatio memoriae.
Peter
Indeed, this is a late qarakhanid broad dirham. The date is 574 AH. The mint is not clear on your specimen. This coin is n.1175 in the Kochev's corpus (the standard work on Qarakhanid coinage), and the mint of this coin is marked by '?' there.
Fortunately, the title and the name of a ruler are known. They are 'Muhammad Bugra Khaqan ' in the field of the reverse (right image) and 'Tadj ad-duniya wa-d-din' in the margin.
The bad new is that this coin is the only evidence of the existence of this person. So, we only know that he was a member of the dynasty who reined in the uncertain appanage in 1178-1179.
The Qarakhanid empire split in an Eastern and a Western part between 406 and 449 AH. That was the beginning of the end for the Qarakhanids, whose lands were falling apart in slow motion, to be succeeded eventually by the Khwarezmshahs. In the 6th century, there was so much chaos and confusion that there is not even agreement on when the known Khans reigned.
Bugra is the family name used by the earliest Qarakhanid khans. Khaqan is great khan, khan of khans. Pretty impressive title. So why don't we know anything about this ruler?
Here is some of my speculation. I think Muhammad was a princeling who thought big. He wanted to restore order, perhaps even rejoin the two parts of the empire. He met with enough initial success to be able to strike this coin. He used his clan name to support his claim with legitimacy and the title to advertise his ambition. Yet his luck ran out fairly quickly. Perhaps he was murdered or he fell in a skirmish. Whatever the case, his successor may have made an effort to remove his name wherever it occurred, something like a Roman damnatio memoriae.
Peter
3
Indian subcontinent: Ancient & Pre-sultanate / Re: Early Shahis of Gandhara: Four Dots Uniface Damma
« Last post by Squarepenny on November 11, 2019, 11:33:41 PM »Here is an extract from our book [A.M. Fishman and I.J. Todd, The Silver Damma: On the mashas, daniqs, qanhari dirhams and other diminutive coins of India, 600-1100 CE, IIRNS Publications, Columbia SC, 2018, pp. 29-30] ...
Manufacturing
The manufacturing method for these coins seems to be unique within Indian numismatics. It is unclear how the flans were prepared – perhaps they were cast, or perhaps the flans were struck with cast dies – but one unusual physical feature remains consistent: the size of the obverse is always somewhat smaller than the reverse. This gives the coins an odd characteristic in that the flans appear almost as though they have been fashioned from two thin halves, glued together. This unusual appearance has led some numismatists, notably Dr. S. Bhandare [personal communication], to believe that these pieces are not coins at all, but artefacts which fulfilled some other, ritual, function. An alternative explanation might be that these pieces were used as gaming tokens of some sort although their careful manufacture and standardized high-purity silver and weight would suggest they were produced to be a reliable medium of exchange and not for a lesser purpose, such as gaming.
Coins of design type A (five-dot coins) were probably struck with dies, but later issues (four-dot design types B and C) may have been cast. John Deyell [personal communication] has theorized that the coins were cast in a very fine medium, possibly clay. A die showing the dot and line pattern (without the inscription) would be pressed into the medium to make the coin outline, and then a variety of aksharas would be scratched into the impression where space had been left on the die. This scratching of the characters resulted in the unusual calligraphy and shallow and fine form of the aksharas. In the next step, either carefully weighed scraps of silver would be put in the shallow impressions and melted down on a charcoal bed, or molten silver would be added. The molten metal would then be pressed with a hard flat surface producing a smooth reverse. This process would explain all the odd characteristics of these coins: the unusually consistent weight (discussed below); the strange two-layer appearance of the coins (as the metal would spill out of the shallow obverse mould when pressed with the flat smooth surface); the lack of casting channel (sprue) remains; and the odd calligraphy. The rust-like flaws sometimes seen on the obverse of these coins probably resulted because the moulds were damaged when the coins were removed (with some clay crumbling or sticking to the coin) and then reused. Many coins show slight impressions of dots on the reverse. Such impressions are also characteristic of casting, when the metal in a thin mould contracts during cooling, forming faint negative impressions across from the prominent features on the obverse.
Since such a unique minting method would have been both easy and inexpensive, not requiring an established mint, the likely possibility is that the coins were not royal issues, but rather merchants’ tokens or trade coinage, each one marked with the issuer’s initials, explaining the oddly large number of types. Alternatively, but perhaps less likely, the inscriptions might be initials of the moneyers or control marks designed to keep track of different issues or workshops.
Manufacturing
The manufacturing method for these coins seems to be unique within Indian numismatics. It is unclear how the flans were prepared – perhaps they were cast, or perhaps the flans were struck with cast dies – but one unusual physical feature remains consistent: the size of the obverse is always somewhat smaller than the reverse. This gives the coins an odd characteristic in that the flans appear almost as though they have been fashioned from two thin halves, glued together. This unusual appearance has led some numismatists, notably Dr. S. Bhandare [personal communication], to believe that these pieces are not coins at all, but artefacts which fulfilled some other, ritual, function. An alternative explanation might be that these pieces were used as gaming tokens of some sort although their careful manufacture and standardized high-purity silver and weight would suggest they were produced to be a reliable medium of exchange and not for a lesser purpose, such as gaming.
Coins of design type A (five-dot coins) were probably struck with dies, but later issues (four-dot design types B and C) may have been cast. John Deyell [personal communication] has theorized that the coins were cast in a very fine medium, possibly clay. A die showing the dot and line pattern (without the inscription) would be pressed into the medium to make the coin outline, and then a variety of aksharas would be scratched into the impression where space had been left on the die. This scratching of the characters resulted in the unusual calligraphy and shallow and fine form of the aksharas. In the next step, either carefully weighed scraps of silver would be put in the shallow impressions and melted down on a charcoal bed, or molten silver would be added. The molten metal would then be pressed with a hard flat surface producing a smooth reverse. This process would explain all the odd characteristics of these coins: the unusually consistent weight (discussed below); the strange two-layer appearance of the coins (as the metal would spill out of the shallow obverse mould when pressed with the flat smooth surface); the lack of casting channel (sprue) remains; and the odd calligraphy. The rust-like flaws sometimes seen on the obverse of these coins probably resulted because the moulds were damaged when the coins were removed (with some clay crumbling or sticking to the coin) and then reused. Many coins show slight impressions of dots on the reverse. Such impressions are also characteristic of casting, when the metal in a thin mould contracts during cooling, forming faint negative impressions across from the prominent features on the obverse.
Since such a unique minting method would have been both easy and inexpensive, not requiring an established mint, the likely possibility is that the coins were not royal issues, but rather merchants’ tokens or trade coinage, each one marked with the issuer’s initials, explaining the oddly large number of types. Alternatively, but perhaps less likely, the inscriptions might be initials of the moneyers or control marks designed to keep track of different issues or workshops.
4
Unidentified coins / Re: Religious token - Shiite
« Last post by saro on November 11, 2019, 11:15:28 PM »The pseudo date "139" means "Ya Husein" in abjad code.
more on this token here
more on this token here
5
Benelux / Re: Belgium 2 centimes 1874 Large narrow date/Small wide date
« Last post by Aernout on November 11, 2019, 09:02:05 PM »An other picture
mvg,
LA
mvg,
LA
6
Benelux / Re: Belgium 2c 1919/4 overdate
« Last post by Aernout on November 11, 2019, 08:59:17 PM »A detail picture
mvg,
LA
mvg,
LA
7
Printed material and equivalent / Re: New catalogue for Kingdom Belgium - CBNU
« Last post by Aernout on November 11, 2019, 08:52:47 PM »Already more then 75% is sold 
gr,
LA
gr,
LA
8
Not used for payments / Re: Tax token: Ruanda-Urundi
« Last post by Aernout on November 11, 2019, 08:48:07 PM »This one is also from Ruanda-Urundi
gr,
Laurens Aernout
gr,
Laurens Aernout
9
British Crown Dependencies / Re: Isle of Man: Peter Pan 50p Series 2019
« Last post by eurocoin on November 11, 2019, 08:43:27 PM »The sale of the coins raised a quarter of a million for Great Ormond Street Hospital.
Left: Elliot Dawson (Sales and Marketing Director Tower Mint), Olivia Dawson (GOSH patient who struck the first silver coin).
Middle: Bil Henderson (Member of the Manx Treasury)
Far right: Raphael Maklouf (Mintmaster Tower Mint)
The others I do not know.
Left: Elliot Dawson (Sales and Marketing Director Tower Mint), Olivia Dawson (GOSH patient who struck the first silver coin).
Middle: Bil Henderson (Member of the Manx Treasury)
Far right: Raphael Maklouf (Mintmaster Tower Mint)
The others I do not know.
10
Unrealised designs / Re: Picture Container for the Design Boards
« Last post by eurocoin on November 11, 2019, 08:36:29 PM ».