Kishangarh Takka C#25

[Rangnath]

If I'm correct, this is a C 25 from the "princely" state of Kishangarh.  The Standard Catalog lists this as a "crude coppy of a Jaipur C47.  Crude?  By whose yardstick?  (I couldn't resist Martin, if you read this) I find it's emphasis on the Jhar rather elegant. But the opposite side perplexes me.  I suspect that if I had 12 examples of this coin, I might begin to understand what was intended. Do I see a reference to Shah Alam II on my coin? I don't see that in the example in the catalog, but I still feel that this is the "same" coin. 
This one weighs 16.7 grams, close enough to the 17 + gram standard. 
richie

[Figleaf]

KM says C25 refers to Muhammad Akbar II, not Alam. Comparing the reverse to the pic in KM, it is striking that the "four triangles" mark is missing. It could be on another part of the die, of course, but the obverse seems well centered, so why make a mess of the reverse? [Speculation]Maybe the reverse die was bigger and mounted, while the obverse die was small and mobile[/speculation] It looks older than C 25 to me.

Peter

[Rangnath]

Good observations Peter.  I'd sure like to hear what Oesho would say about it. 
My guess now is that I'm wrong about the catalog numer for this coin and that it is C#5.  And that you're right, there is a huge amount of information on the die.
richie

[Oesho]

Richie, you're right it is Kishangarh C#25. Takka in the name of Muhammad Akbar II. The top line read Shah Akbar. Below is D (part of Bad Shah), but most of the legend wasn't a part of the die at all.
In the 1970's when I visited Kishangarh I was shown some steel dies used for striking the copper Takkas.
As we couldn't agree on the price for those dies, I took fax impressions of them. The dies where of course a bit rusty, but all details show perfectly well. I will send you the scans of those wax impressions to add to this page.

[Rangnath]

What an absolutely mind blowing incredible fantastic set of images!!!! 
Without knowing the complete die and having only one specimen, assigning a catalog number to this coin was guess work.  Having the wax impressions is extraordinary!
richie

[Figleaf]

One more super-thread. This deserves to be published and enjoyed. Thank you Oesho! (BTW, where did you get the wax when you needed it? I'd be hopelessly lost in that sort of situation...)

Peter

[Oesho]

The dealer in Kishangarh bazaar, who showed me the dies, was very co-operative. He had them on commission, but was helpful enough by getting some pieces of wax from a shop in the bazaar. We had to soften the wax with a candle to get a proper impression of the dies. That's why some of the wax impressions are almost black. Besides this set of dies, there were two more dies, viz.: the obv. die of the Takka C#5 and the obv. die of the rupee C#10, dated 1198.

To follow Peter's request (below), I have attached herewith the other wax
impressions
#III is obv. Takka C#5
#IV is obv. rupee 1198 C#10
Kind Regards,

[Figleaf]

You wish sellers here would also be so pleasant and cooperative. Did you make an imprint of the other two dies also? If so, is there any way you can be moved to publish them here?

Peter

[Rangnath]

I remember the red wax fondly.  It was everywhere available in the 1960's and was used for parcels and letters, for seals and protection against curious and criminal post office officials.

These images are treasures. Thank you so much Oesho, for posting them.
richie

[Coinsforever]

One more super-thread. This deserves to be published and enjoyed. Thank you Oesho! (BTW, where did you get the wax when you needed it? I'd be hopelessly lost in that sort of situation...)

Peter

I'm amazed to see this thread . Wow great information.

Cheers

[vishalbj]

SEE THAT DIE IS WITH ME BOUGHT FEW DAYS BACK

[Figleaf]

There are three dies shown in this thread, Vishal. Which one did you buy?

Peter