EIC Bengal Presidency, Shahjanabad rupees, Muhammad Akbar II

[cmerc]

A couple of Bengal Presidency hammered rupees I recently acquired. Although these coins were struck in the style of the Mughal issues from Shahjahanabad (listed under Mughal in KM), they are, in fact, issued by the East India Company in the name of the nominal emperor Muhammad Akbar (II).

(Top row)
East India Company, Bengal Presidency, in name of Muhammad Akbar (II)
1223-2 [1808], Shahjahanabad mint
Stevens#8.64, KM#777 (under Mughal), unlisted in Pridmore

(Bottom row)
East India Company, Bengal Presidency, in name of Muhammad Akbar (II)
1222-Ahd [1807], Shahjahanabad mint
Stevens#8.62, KM#777 (under Mughal), unlisted in Pridmore



The coin pictured on the bottom row is encapsulated: NGC AU53, clearly over-graded.

[asm]

Why do you say that these were BEIC issues? Though almost the whole country was under the BEIC control, nominally, the Mughal Emperor (sic) was in full control over the Red Fort (Shahjehanabad) and was paid his pension in Mughal Rupees minted especially for this purpose.

Amit

[cmerc]

Why do you say that these were BEIC issues? Though almost the whole country was under the BEIC control, nominally, the Mughal Emperor (sic) was in full control over the Red Fort (Shahjehanabad) and was paid his pension in Mughal Rupees minted especially for this purpose.

Amit

Good point! My attribution is based on Paul Steven's Bengal Presidency book. He does acknowledge that Delhi could be considered a Mughal-EIC transitional mint.

It seems that the English took control of Delhi ~1803. The Mughal emperor indeed insisted upon being paid his pension in Shahjahanabad rupees, but the English debated whether it was worthwhile to maintain the mint at Delhi. So, it seems that although the (very small) Red Fort area was under Mughal "control", the coins were English-issued from an EIC-controlled mint.

So, I guess that these coins now appeal to both Mughal and BEIC collectors!

[repindia]

Good point! My attribution is based on Paul Steven's Bengal Presidency book. He does acknowledge that Delhi could be considered a Mughal-EIC transitional mint.

It seems that the English took control of Delhi ~1803. The Mughal emperor indeed insisted upon being paid his pension in Shahjahanabad rupees, but the English debated whether it was worthwhile to maintain the mint at Delhi. So, it seems that although the (very small) Red Fort area was under Mughal "control", the coins were English-issued from an EIC-controlled mint.

So, I guess that these coins now appeal to both Mughal and BEIC collectors!

These examples were till recently sold as Mughal pieces till Paul Stevens' research came along. I bought my nazrana example as a Mughal piece. I won't be able to afford it today. :-)

[cmerc]

Great specimen Vikram! Just to point out to other board members, this is Shah Alam (II) issue, not Muhammad Akbar.

With these issues, I always find it difficult to distinguish between nazrana and regular issues. Do you have a regular Shah Alam issue to compare with?

[Harry]

Very interesting information and nice coins @cmerc and @repindia!

[cmerc]

Very interesting information and nice coins @cmerc and @repindia!

Thanks Harry! There are several such specimens other members have also posted.