Author Topic: MUGHAL Aurangzeb - Sholapur  (Read 1945 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline asm

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6 377
  • Ahmedabad, India
MUGHAL Aurangzeb - Sholapur
« on: December 20, 2008, 03:49:39 PM »
I recently purchased the following coin. The strange thing is that the obverse shows the RY date and the reverse shows the AH date. Can someone comment on this? This is the first time I have seen such a thing.
"It Is Better To Light A Candle Than To Curse The Darkness"

Offline Oesho

  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3 371
Re: MUGHAL Aurangzeb - Sholapur
« Reply #1 on: December 20, 2008, 09:37:31 PM »
I have a similar rupee where the AH date is shown on the reverse and the regnal year on the obverse, but with the mintname Ahmadnagar, dated 1095/Ry.28. The rupee shows the same dots and other marks. This might be an indication that the dies were cut centrally and distributed to the regional centres. This 'mistake' in placing the date and regnal year is a fair proof that the dies were produced centrally.

Offline asm

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6 377
  • Ahmedabad, India
Re: MUGHAL Aurangzeb - Sholapur
« Reply #2 on: December 21, 2008, 02:50:09 AM »
Oesho, does this happen fairly regularly or is it only on these few mints for the perticular years. I do not recollect having ever seen any other coin with this arrangement of years.
Amit
"It Is Better To Light A Candle Than To Curse The Darkness"

Offline Oesho

  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3 371
Re: MUGHAL Aurangzeb - Sholapur
« Reply #3 on: December 21, 2008, 08:41:06 AM »
On the coins of Aurangzeb it is probably the only on the coins of Ahmadnagar and Sholapur that the Ry. and AH-date is mixed. Moreover I know of only the coins of Ry.28. with AH-date 1095 or 1096.
The execution of both coins are so identical, incl. the dots and other decorative symbols, that the dies must have been prepared by one and the same person.

Offline asm

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6 377
  • Ahmedabad, India
Re: MUGHAL Aurangzeb - Sholapur
« Reply #4 on: December 21, 2008, 12:44:48 PM »
Oesho, since all the coins of a perticular mint and year would not be made from the same set of die punches, would it be possible that you have the correct placement of the dates as the standard on coins of the same year RY 28 / AH 1095 or 1096 and that these coins (with the date placement inverted) are a small minority struck from one single die of that perticular mint. Could they be classified as unique or rare?
Amit
"It Is Better To Light A Candle Than To Curse The Darkness"

Offline Figleaf

  • Administrator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28 627
Re: MUGHAL Aurangzeb - Sholapur
« Reply #5 on: December 22, 2008, 01:10:14 AM »
I may misinterpret what Oesho is saying, but I think what he means is that an incomplete punch would be cut at some central point, so that a local mint would only have to add the mint name. This practice also occurred in Britain and France. If this is so, should one not observe different styles of writing in the mint name?

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

Offline asm

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6 377
  • Ahmedabad, India
Re: MUGHAL Aurangzeb - Sholapur
« Reply #6 on: December 22, 2008, 05:57:50 AM »
If that was the case, why would coins of the same area have different looks - small differences. I have observed that there are a differences on coins of different mints of a local area for the same year. It may be possibe that on some occasions, may be due to some special reasons, the die-punch were supplied from a centeral area? Also I have observed different marks on coins (mint or mint master marks) which may not support the centeral theory.
Amit
"It Is Better To Light A Candle Than To Curse The Darkness"

Offline Oesho

  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3 371
Re: MUGHAL Aurangzeb - Sholapur
« Reply #7 on: December 22, 2008, 01:15:57 PM »
The production of dies during the Mughal period is still a quite unexplored area. First of all I don't think they used punches. The dies were engraved directly, without the use of punches.
On the otherhand the examples that kind of matrixes were used, is know from several instances.
In the case of Ahmadnagar / Sholapur, the dies for the date combination Ry.28/AH1095-96 were produced by one and the same die-sinker, either at Sholapur or Ahmadnagar.

Offline asm

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6 377
  • Ahmedabad, India
Re: MUGHAL Aurangzeb - Sholapur
« Reply #8 on: December 22, 2008, 01:36:51 PM »
I agree with your views that the dies for these perticular mints would have been produced by one die maker at one place (either in Ahmadnagar or in Sholapur). However the other part of the question - since there would be more than one die (do I presume correctly?) it would be possible that there exist coins with the correct arrangement of dates?
Amit
"It Is Better To Light A Candle Than To Curse The Darkness"