1878 Quarter (1/4) Rupee

[zwiggy]

I don't have a picture to post - but I was wondering. Pridmore and Krause list this coin at 44,000 odd. Most proclaim this coin to be the rarest British India coin. Yet I have seen about 20 listed this year on ebay - many more than other much more common dates. For a  130+ year old coin of such small mintage - that is a very large number. Is it possible there is an error in the mintage number?

[Harry]

I  believe that there is an error in that mintage value for the same reason you stated. I've seen many of them for sale for such a low mintage one would expect that the survival rate be quite low. There is a possibility that for some unknown reason a large number of these survived but I don't know for sure. Its not an extremely rare coin. 

For the Victoria Empress half rupee  mintages,  Pridmore states that even though the numbers are from official documents some of them may not be accurate.  I think this is true for many BI coins. For example the 1906 1 Anna with an official mintage of 200k, even though none are known to exist.   

So I think you are right in questioning the mintage value of that coin.

[repindia]

I need to read on this one and will do so the holidays. I believe this figure might not be the actual mintage of the coin dated 1878 but those minted in 1878. This coin sure is available but not so freely and to get in higher grades is very difficult. There should surely be lesser coins on the market if the mintage indeed is 44k!

[zwiggy]

Thanks! So it is good to be suspicious 

Yes, of all the 20 auctions I observed in the last 12 months - the highest grade I saw was XF to XF+. Nothing better.

[The Oracle]

Thanks! So it is good to be suspicious 

Yes, of all the 20 auctions I observed in the last 12 months - the highest grade I saw was XF to XF+. Nothing better.

peacebd has gem coins of everything just ask him to post a ppic

[repindia]

peacebd has gem coins of everything just ask him to post a ppic

Just to clarify that nice UNC examples exist for each and every rarity and not saying these simply do not exist. I myself have one nice BU example and am looking forward to Bhushan's nice gem example.

[cranko]

KRAUSE shows a mintage of 40,532 for the KM-454.1 1840 (b & c) 1/4 RUPEE MULE
KRAUSE also shows a mintage of 44,000 for KM-480 1878 "C" 1/4 RUPEE

How many 1/4 RUPEE MULES 1840 (b & c) has anyone seen in the past year?

I've seen two, and none were on ebay-

How many 1/4 RUPEE 1878 C's have been sold/for sale on ebay in the past year?

I've seen a dozen or so-

Seeing something on ebay so frequently has got to shed some light about the availability.

Doesn't mean a 1/4 RUPEE MULE won't show up on ebay.

Right after the Yashoda Singh sale last year in September I saw more than 20+ 1878 1/4 RUPEE C's sold in three months in all conditions-

The coin went bananas because of one sale, and the market perception.

Most 1/4's in the Empress series are condition sensitive, I agree completely with what repindia had written, and those are not struck so great either consistently. 

Shouldn't we see more MULES or maybe the same number if the mintages are correct?

Correct?

1878 1/4 C is a "perceived" scarcity I believe, and the mintage figure is a typographical error.

The MULE mintage may be a typo as well.   

The mintage for the 1840 MULE and 1878 1/4 C are both wrong from my experience.

Your experience may vary.

Very greatly-



 

[repindia]

KRAUSE shows a mintage of 40,532 for the KM-454.1 1840 (b & c) 1/4 RUPEE MULE

I would like to know from where they got this mintage figure. I don't recall any other reference having this (though have not checked Paul Stevens and Rady Weir's book on this subject) and must have some source to arrive at such a precise figure.

Agree with cranko and other posters that the 1878 1/4 Rupee is a perceived rarity. There are many other examples of coins which are somehow considered to be desirable even though the market is flooded with these coins and it is there for everyone to see but still the demand is there and people pay crazy money for them. The market price after all is not dependent on just the mintage or the survival rate but also on the demand for these. Demand + Supply will determine the price. 

Smart collectors get to buy some really tough coins and tokens for nothing since the market does not want those (or does not appreciate the scarcity...yet) while popular coins do go for a premium over these examples!

[cranko]

I would like to know from where they got this mintage figure.

Agree with cranko and other posters that the 1878 1/4 Rupee is a perceived rarity. There are many other examples of coins which are somehow considered to be desirable even though the market is flooded with these coins and it is there for everyone to see but still the demand is there and people pay crazy money for them.

Who knows with the mintage, Krause has the wrong picture for the Mule as well, and so does NGC.

Look at The 1938 Rupee for example. It's not rare, but really popular. But, the coin is very condition sensitive, much tougher in higer grades than just UNC, and I believe people buy the 38 coin as an entry since the 1939 Rupee is not so readily available. The price obviously has a big gap in value terms, and so does the rarity for 1938 and 1939 respectively.

There is always value like you mentioned, and you just got to find it.

"Never ran with a clique - I'm a posse" - EMINEM
"I am master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul" - William Ernest Henley

[Harry]

Who knows with the mintage, Krause has the wrong picture for the Mule as well, and so does NGC.

I don't think that the reference books are wrong. I think that the way BI mints recorded the mintages are different from what the reference books define mintages.   

In Pridmore if you look at the mintage numbers for the EMPRESS half rupees (see page 127) there is a foot note that states "Minting figures, although complied from official returns, are not a reliable guide to the numbers struck showing the date of that year. The production year for statistical purposes fell partly in one year and partly in another, but according to the instructions issued to the Mint Masters, the date change on the coins was effective from the 1st of January each year." 

In other words the BI mintage numbers are based on the actual number of coins produced that year regardless of the date on the coin. This implies that the mintage number of 1877 ¼ Rupee (year previous) could have included 1878 ¼ Rupees as production of 1878 could have started prior to 1st of Jan 1878.  This would also explain a why the mint recorded 200,000 mintage under 1906 for the 1 Anna coin, when there are no 1906 1 Anna but the mint may have produced 200,000 1 anna coins dated 1907 in 1906 and continued producing them in 1907. The reverse might also be true if you take for example the 1915 Rupee, if these were produced for a short period during 1915 and production of the 1916 Rupee  started in 1915 which boosts the mintage numbers of 1915 up. 

So based on these numbers we may never know the true number of 1878 1/4 Rupee actually produced.  This is my understanding and I could be wrong.

[repindia]

In Pridmore if you look at the mintage numbers for the EMPRESS half rupees (see page 127) there is a foot note that states "Minting figures, although complied from official returns, are not a reliable guide to the numbers struck showing the date of that year. The production year for statistical purposes fell partly in one year and partly in another, but according to the instructions issued to the Mint Masters, the date change on the coins was effective from the 1st of January each year." 

Thanks for the quote and this is exactly what I had pointed out before but you got the quote which saves me from the search!

Thanks again.

[cranko]

The perceived scarcity of the 1878 1/4 is still believed to this day, and can be marketed as "scarce". Technically speaking the mintage is the mintage, Krause makes no notation of this information, and I have read the footnote as well in Pridmore's notes. This explains why the 1879 1/4 Rupee is tougher to get than 1878 1/4 Rupee, and why the 1880 1/4 is tougher to find than 1879. The 1906 One Anna i'm not so sure about, but we will never know the answer. It could have been that a small quantity of 1907 One Anna coins were struck in 1906 200,000 or maybe it was a proposed mintage that was never minted, and there is only a pattern. Whereas the 1938 1/2 pice there is a mintage listed, but there was a die for the coin, and this coin is only found in proof/restrike only. There was no die for the business strike 1906 one Anna issue. The 1938 Rupee was never struck in 1938, and first struck in the late part of 1939 in "small quantity" as noted by Pridmore. The bulk of the 1938 Rupee dated mintage was struck in 1940, and the 1939 dated mintage was struck in 1940 as well. Pleaase keep in mind as well that the 1940 Rupee coin mintage is not all coins, and part of the mintage includes One Rupee paper notes. So this would imply nobody can distinguish when the quote was no longer "in effect" or how consistent the mint was with actual coins struck or proposed mintage records. Of course the records mean something. But which period did this begin and when did it stop? The EIC or The "entire" Imperial Period? The quote certainly dost not hold true for the 1938 and 1939 dated Rupee coins. So is it true for the 1906 One Anna coin? The 1906 One Anna coin was a pattern issue only, or was it stuck as a proposed new coinage? Was it a planned mintage, and never minted? I'll never know the true answer, and the mule mintage completely stumps me. According to Pridmore the DIVIDED LEGEND TYPE II 1/4 Rupees were first struck by Calcutta between the dates of July 1850-April 1851 The Bombay Mint followed suit by striking this denomination between the dates of February 1851-August 1851 The date on the mule coin is 1840, but the mule wasn't struck until 1851 at the earliest according to Pridmore. It certainly could not have been struck in 1840 The DIVIDED LEGEND or TYPE II dies went into striking production in 1851 by two mints: Bombay and Calcutta. So which mint made the MULE? Nobody knows the answer, and these mints did share dies from time to time as well. So here is what I want know. When the DIVIDED LEGEND dated 1840 1/4 Rupees were first struck in 1851, which mint recorded what figure, and most importantly what year did they enter the data? Fiscal retroactive 1840? 1851? 1852? 1853? 1854? Did they combine all the records? It's best to ask Marty McFly. Only he can find out, and quell our curiosity. Curiosity ain't going to kill me though.....meeeeeooooooooow.......there are better curiosities that could murder me. For example : Does Ganesh (Ganpati) prefer Toned Milk or Whole Milk? Then I wonder if he likes Bournvita or Nestle's Strawberry Quick in his milk of choice-

[Harry]

Thanks for the quote and this is exactly what I had pointed out before but you got the quote which saves me from the search!

No problem, the Pridmore book is fascinating....I'm looking forward to Dr. Steven's & Randy Wier's book on BI Uniform coinage. I hope to get it in the New York coin show in a few weeks. 

So this would imply nobody can distinguish when the quote was no longer "in effect" or how consistent the mint was with actual coins struck or proposed mintage records. Of course the records mean something. But which period did this begin and when did it stop

You have a good point. I think I over extended the intention of Pridmore's quote and applied it to explain the entire BI series.  If I have learnt one thing about BI collecting is that there are more questions than answers, which makes this area so interesting.

I think this does show that what many BI collectors and dealers use as "mintage numbers" for a given year is not necessarily correct as these numbers were obtained from official "records" and labeled as mintage numbers. What type of records, how were these numbers are calculated is still a mystery and open to some interesting numismatic research.

I think we will know some day .... the best is yet to come!

It's best to ask Marty McFly. Only he can find out, and quell our curiosity. Curiosity ain't going to kill me though.....meeeeeooooooooow.......there are better curiosities that could murder me.

Haha... go back to the future to find out how curiosity killed the cat!

[cranko]

nice pic! we learn new stuff all the time with these multiple series which is cool. coin sleuthing...haha