Jewelry Token Imitations: Bengal Presidency Rupees and Mohurs

Started by Rangnath, May 03, 2008, 09:39:17 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Rangnath

I find Bengal Presidency rupees confusing!  I have what I cataloged as a Km 99.  The edge is "oblique".  The reverse and obverse look very much like yours. 
In my Standard Catalog, 1801 to 1900, I do not have a km 108.  I do find a Km 109, which also looks very much like the Km 99 and your coin.  All may have struck in Murshidabad.  What should I look for in order to make a definite determination? The rim? The edge?

With a fixed date and identical legends and weight, I would have been content if all such coins had but one catalog number, or  Km 108.1, 108.2, 108.3 and so forth!
richie

Rangnath

Below are two Bengal Presidency coins. The first may be km 99. The second may be km 99.1.  On the other hand, I might be wrong about both! Certainly, they are similar to yours.
richie

bart

Hi Richie,

I use the Krause 1801-1900 3rd edition.
According to that catalog KM#99 has oblique milling; KM#108 has vertical milling and a star added on the reverse at 9 o'clock; KM#109 has a privy mark S added on the reverse at about 10 o'clock; KM#117 has a plain edge and a crescent at 10 o'clock.

Your second coin definitely is KM#99.1, struck in Calcutta (according to my catalog). I don't see the first one listed. On the obverse in the center line it shows a 7 dotted rose instead of a crescent. I don't know what that means.

Bart

Rangnath

Thanks Bart.
My catalog is a 5th edition and does not show a Km 99.1. 
It does show yours, I don't know why I didn't see it last night.  It could be because I had been drinking a Belgiun-style beer (made in California) and I'm not used to the increase in alchohol!  :-[
I see the addition of the star. After seeing incredible variations in hammered coinage in which the coin retains the same catalog numer, the addition of the small star isn't that impressive.  The vertical edge is more so.  In my catalog, there is no distinction made, however, between the dates of Km 108 and Km 99. 
richie

bart

Hi Richie,

About the dating, there is a light discrepancy in what's in Krause or what's in my old Craig (Coins of the world 1750-1850)
Krause gives: oblique milling: 1793-1797, from 1798 to 1818 only in Calcutta); vertical milling: 1819-1832; plain edge: 1830-1833
Craig writes: oblique milling: 1792-1818; vertical milling: 1818-1832; plain edge: 1833-1835.

I suppose Krause is (more) right, as it is more recent.

bart

Rangnath

Thanks again.
I find it curious that in my edition of the Standard Catalog, the 5th, dating information is not given apart from the fixed date. This is true not only for our coins (km 99 and km 108) but for all of the silver coinage of the Bengal Presidency. 
Was that because of new information or were the editors trying to reduce the size of the catalog?
richie

Oesho

Richie, to solve your problem, the first coin you illustrates is a silver jewellers imitation of a gold mohur. So therefore it is not listed in KM.

Rangnath

Thanks Oesho!
Though I have to admit, I am not sure what you mean. 
1. Do you mean the coin which I identified as Km 99; the coin with the beaded boarder and a date of 1252?
2. Do you mean by "silver jeweler's imitation" that the coin is a:
             a. a "Fake" made for purposes of deception? Is it silver plated, or billon and not silver?
             b. a silver copy made in the 19th century, not for purposes of deception, that may have entered general circulation?

Assuming that the copy was not made to deceive and that the value of the coin because of its silver content was the same as officially minted coins, why would such a copy be made?

Richie

Oesho

The token dated 1202 has a rosette to the left of Fazl. This rosette appears only on gold coins. There are more details which make it a jewelers imitation. I had a lenghty discussion with Aiden on ZENO http://www.zeno.ru/showphoto.php?photo=53814 regarding a similar token.
Just to make a copy of a gold mohur in a base metal the jewellers couldn't be charged of counterfeiting, as it wasn't a gold mohur and neither a silver rupee.

Rangnath

Quite intersting! I will label my coin as a Gold Mohur imitation.  The jeweler did a good job.  I think the strike of it, and the fineness of the detail, is better than the second coin which I posted.
richie

Figleaf

Wonderful! That's more interesting than the coin, which is reasonably common. I have two further questions:

Why would the jeweller do this? Did his clients want it to decorate clothes or some other legal purpose or did he have shady clients who wouldn't mind gilding the imitation?

Does KM list these imitations?

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

Oesho

The jeweller imitations are not in KM, but a few examples are listed by Pridmore and also Michael Mitchiner covered this series in his more recent publication Indian Tokens: Popular Religious & Secular Art from the ancient period to the present day (London 1998)
At first glance the tokens appear to be rupee denomination, but on the majority their design is in fact that of the old standard mohur. Half and quarters imitations occur. Gold and copper imitations are also recorded. Their engraving style and manufacture is generally excellent. Some bear initials, yet others give the name and city of the issuer. These particular specimens have caused considerable confusion among  European and American cataloguers (and people from New-Zealand as well :)) who, unable to recognise the true character of the pieces, have classed them as rare patterns or major varieties of currency issues.
The causes for this later imitation of coins no longer a legal tender, appears to have been due to the belief in the metal purity of the particular issue, and partly to a veneration of the people for their old Emperors. When the E.I.C. abolished the old Mughal design on their coins in 1835, and introduced a new currency with English inscriptions showing the effigy of the reigning English monarch or the Arms of the E.I.C., the preference of the people for the older issues created demand.
The 19 san sicca coinage ceased to be legal tender from the 1st of January 1838, and thereafter became worth only the bullion value. For several years the quantity of the coins still available for jewellery use, mementos or souvenirs, must have been sufficient, but in the larger towns and cities the continued demand produced a scarcity and enhanced the price. It is this cause which brought into being the poorer quality imitations. What is not readily apparent is the reason why most favoured imitations in silver or white metal was the design of the old standard gold mohur. No specimens have so far been traced which shows signs of having been gilded to represent the mohur; also their thickness and weight is usually approximate to that of a silver rupee.
Several of the imitations bear initials or names and the location of their issuers. In these cases a more correct definition of their status would be advertisement tickets, for the issuer must have been well known in the locality. However, since we have no apparent record of their correct use, and as their manufacture took place long after the original coins had been demonetised, they can at present only be classed as jewellers imitations (several pieces bear mounts by which they were originally attached as pendants to necklaces). The period of imitation perhaps commencing circa 1850-60, and extending into the 20th century.

I have attached a couple of examples of jewellery tokens imitating the the 19-san coinage of the British East India Company.

1) AU jewellery token of a half mohur, imitating the 19-san coinage of the B.E.I.C. Mint on this token is Kalkata. Initials FM added to obv. and rev.

2) AR jewellery token of a rupee, imitating the 19-san coinage of the B.E.I.C. Mint reads Muwaffiq Murshidabad (in the style of Murshidabad)

3) AR jewellery token of a rupee, imitating the 19-san coinage of the B.E.I.C. Mint reads Shahr Akbarabad (in the town of Akbarabad [=Agra]). Interesting to note that this token is dated 1909 Iswy (in the year of Jesus 1909)

4) AR jewellery token of a rupee, imitating the 19-san coinage of the B.E.I.C. (Mint) name in Gujarati. Latin P left under on the obv.

5) AR jewellery token of a rupee, imitating the 19-san coinage of the B.E.I.C. Mint name Kalkata to Benares. Bull in the lower segment of the obv. Name of the issuer reads ´Jarikh ud-Din Akbar Ali´ on the centre line of the obv.


Rangnath


Yes, this is absolutely fascinating! Regardless of the numismatic value of my coin, you have definitely increased the value the coin has for me.

I hope Bart is OK with the way I split the topic. 

Is the title misleading?  Were similar imitations for similar reasons produced in the Bombay and Madras Presidency?

richie

Figleaf

Truly awesome pictures. :o Made my day. 8)

It's clear now that these imitations would generally be used as decoration. I interpret the two "eyes" as a safety measure: sew both separately on your clothes and if one thread breaks, the other will save the day. The two pieces without "eyes" show traces of having had them at one time. The gold FM piece may have had a single "eye", maybe it was used as a pendant. However, I don't see traces of an "eye" on Rangnath's piece.

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

Rangnath

Just a thought:

The level of craftsmanship is so good; is it possible that imitations were also made of silver rupees and not just of gold?  The silver imitations of Gold Mohurs would today be easier (for Oesho at least) to identify as such.  But wouldn't silver imitations of Silver Rupees be accepted today as being those of officially minted coins? Don't we see Km 99.1 or Km 108 in use as jewelry as well as those tokens identified as imitations?

Were edges (oblique and vertically milled) more difficult for a jeweler to imitate and might that be a way to "find" such imitations?

Oh, well. Enough of such thinking.
richie