Shah Alam Bahadur, Rupee, Mint: Torgal, AH 1121 RY 3. Ref: KM 348.35

[asm]

Shah Alam Bahadur, Torgal, AH 1122. I hope I have read the date correct. This is the one Akona has missing in SCWC.



The number and variety of counter marks is amazing.

Amit

[Oesho]

The help comes from the regnal year. Despite that it is much defaced, it is clearly a three.
Therefore the only correct date combinations are 1120/3 or 1121/3. It's clear that the AH -date is not 1120, so it must be AH1121/Ry.3. According Arthur's spreadsheet, a date not recorded either for Toragal.

[Figleaf]

I suppose it's me, but I see the 1121 and can't find the 3. Where is it hiding?

Peter

[akona20]

Folks, firstly whatever it is it is a new date which is great. Now as for what it is I will go with Oesho and adjust accordingly.

Those countermarks are rather good and will come in useful later.

[Oesho]

I suppose it's me, but I see the 1121 and can't find the 3. Where is it hiding?

Peter if you look at the two c/m on the left image, they are located over Sanah (=year). In between the two countermatks you may observe a wavy line. This is clearly the 'flag' of a three. It can't be any other digit. So that makes the whole date AH1121/Ry.3.

[Figleaf]

Thanks, Oesho! Experience is a wonderful thing...

Peter

[asm]

Peter if you look at the two c/m on the left image, they are located over Sanah (=year). In between the two countermatks you may observe a wavy line. This is clearly the 'flag' of a three. It can't be any other digit. So that makes the whole date AH1121/Ry.3.

Thanks Oesho. Even with the coin in hand I did not see the RY. Thanks for the confirmation.

Amit

[akona20]

In my work there is an ill presented page on where, generally, to look for the Regnal Year. I will rewrite this page this weekend to make it a little more presentable and user friendly. However in this coin even the indicator word has marks across it and so is difficult to recognise if you are unaware of what you are looking for.

[asm]

I was just referring to some past correspondence I has with Salvete wherein he had taken reference to Maheshwari & Wiggins book (I am unable to find a copy) and mentioned that all Torgal coins are Maratha issues. Could some one please confirm.

Amit

[akona20]

Interesting question and one, at this stage, I am not qualified to answer. However I will advise the work being done is called in part "in the Name of the Mughal Emperors" which rather absolves me from any contest on the issue.

[Oesho]

......and mentioned that all Torgal coins are Maratha issues. Could some one please confirm.

A mint was apparently established at Toragal during the last years of the reign of Aurangzeb, following his conquest in that part of the Deccan. Rupees with his Ry. 50 are known. Rupees are also known of Kam Baksh his son who usurped power in the Deccan in 1707 and of Shah Alam Bahadur and Farukhsiyar. These coins all appear to be conventional Mughal issues, struck under imperial authority.
The later issues in the name of Muhammad Shah where innitially struck whilst Toragal was under the control of the Nawabs of Savanur, followed up by the Marathas.

[asm]

Thank you Oesho for clarifying this one. I do have a rupee of Aurangzeb AH 1118 RY 50 besides this one.

Amit

[akona20]

The coinage of Kam Baksh given where he was on his father's death and during the subsequent revolt is very interesting to say the least. As Oesho advises he struck coins at Toragal. A map is being prepared to accompany the annexure for him the Shah Alam 1 Bahadur's coins.

[Md. Shariful Islam]

I think the counter marks are a matter of research. These marks are interesting and has there been enough study on these?

Islam

[akona20]

The use of the term counter mark or bankers mark on these coins is interesting. To be clear we are talking about marks that have been impressed (stamped) on the coin after the minting process has been completed. Various theories exist and a number of articles are available.

I believe that it is an area for research and it would require the formulation of a table of such marks, a little like the mint mark tables that exist in a number of publications. If we looked purely at what I am doing in this early stage columns could be added to the spreadsheet to accommodate such a study. Given my private thoughts on the matter you really need to have the full knowledge of the coin, ruler, mint, Regnal year and Ah year, to start such a study to be able to have data that could be analysed to come to some conclusion.

A simple question to ask. If the marks are some sort of dating mechanism why have they been placed, at times, over the Regnal year and or the Ah year on some coins?

If they are Shroff's marks as such where were they used for the one reign? An impossible question but what mints were which marks used on?

In mints that were used infrequently are these marks noticed on any of the coins? These are but a few of the many questions before any further thoughts can be deduced.