AWADH, AE Falus, Wajid Ali Shah, Akhtarnagar , AH1269/ RY6, KM-Unlisted.

[PeaceBD]

 AWADH, AE Falus, 12.19g, 24.2mm, AH1269/ RY6. Ruler: Wajid Ali Shah. Mintname: Baitus-s-Sultanat Lakhnau Mulk Awadh Akhtarnagar. Similar to KM-351.2 but stuck on a machine made planchet. Unlisted type and date. Rare.
I would appreciate any more info or museum catalog reference for this coin.



Thanks
Bhushan

[repindia]

Bhushan this is very similar to the falus which sold at Baldwin's David Fore auction. There they mention "This may have been a mint trial for the possible introduction of machine-made coinage or to test the impression of a pair of Rupee dies." That coin was dated AH1267 and now this dated AH1269, the former theory can be ruled out. The only problem with the Rupee dies theory is that these do not match any Rupee dies.

I am thus a little hesitant about this piece. It is not to say that such machine struck trials were not done. I have one example of (I don't remember which state) which was struck on a similar piece but with an identical die of the copper coin. It was certified to be genuine by Steve Album's team. I will try to get that and check it out now that I have my doubts.

[capnbirdseye]

The odd thing about this coin is that the engraving is exceptionally crude even for an Awadh coin & I wonder why they would possibly trial strike from such crude dies ?

[PeaceBD]

Bhushan this is very similar to the falus which sold at Baldwin's David Fore auction. There they mention "This may have been a mint trial for the possible introduction of machine-made coinage or to test the impression of a pair of Rupee dies." That coin was dated AH1267 and now this dated AH1269, the former theory can be ruled out. The only problem with the Rupee dies theory is that these do not match any Rupee dies.

I am thus a little hesitant about this piece. It is not to say that such machine struck trials were not done. I have one example of (I don't remember which state) which was struck on a similar piece but with an identical die of the copper coin. It was certified to be genuine by Steve Album's team. I will try to get that and check it out now that I have my doubts.

Vikram, thanks a lot. I was aware of the Awadh falus from the David Fore collection when I saw this coin. I thoroughly research a lot of old auction catalogs and some old museum catalogs too to find any info on this and the David Fore coin. Both Jan and Shailendra Bhandare have confirmed the genuineness of the coin and in hand it does not leave even a slightest doubt in my mind. Posting on FB found out the collector who owns the David Fore coin. He has also seen only one other coin of this type and it is in a private collection in Mumbai. That coin is dated AH 1268. 
I also do not buy the "stuck with a rupee die" explanation in the David Fore Auction lot but believe that these were trail pieces or patterns stuck for approval or presentation to British officials as "specimen' as mentioned by Shailendra Bhandare. 

The odd thing about this coin is that the engraving is exceptionally crude even for an Awadh coin & I wonder why they would possibly trial strike from such crude dies ?

Vic, I believe we normally come across Awadh copper coins in a very worn state. The coin I posted shows virtually no signs of circulation but shows slightly weak strike on the reverse between 2 and 4 o'clock. Now if you look at the David Fore coin it appears to be circulated giving it that look which we normally see with Awadh copper coins. I have attached the David fore lot for reference.

http://www.sixbid.com/browse.html?auction=901&category=18666&lot=857018

[Bimat]

If Jan Lingen (Oesho) says it's genuine, then it's genuine. No further discussion required, matter closed.

Aditya

[sailor]

Hi all,
I am no expert...... But there is a similar coin AH1267 at Oswal auction lot 3.67 

[PeaceBD]

Hi all,
I am no expert...... But there is a similar coin AH1267 at Oswal auction lot 3.67 

Thanks for bringing this to my notice. It is interesting to note that the dies used for striking the Oswal auction coin is different than  my coin or the David Fore piece. I think the Oswal Auction coin matches the description for KM#351.2. Also I believe the RY is incorrectly documented as 5 in the Auction description. I think the RY is 6 which makes it different from the DF coin even though the hijri date is 1267.  The Oswal coin also misses the design element on the center of the obverse seen on both DF coin and my coin. I also see the arrangement of the mint epithet is different on the Oswal coin. I would appreciate if some one can help with reading the mint name.

I am attaching the picture of the Oswal Auction coin lot 3.76 here for future reference.  Picture is property of Oswal Auctions.

[PeaceBD]

Adding a picture of the Ex. David Fore coin for future reference. Image is property of Baldwin's.

[repindia]

I might be wrong but the Oswal auction coin does not look like the planchet was machine made. It might just be the fact the way it is pictured is making it look like it.

[capnbirdseye]

I might be wrong but the Oswal auction coin does not look like the planchet was machine made. It might just be the fact the way it is pictured is making it look like it.

I agree,the Oswal flan is hand made for sure, I also have an Awadh paisa with very round flan but I can see it's not machine made

[PeaceBD]

I agree,the Oswal flan is hand made for sure, I also have an Awadh paisa with very round flan but I can see it's not machine made

I might be wrong but the Oswal auction coin does not look like the planchet was machine made. It might just be the fact the way it is pictured is making it look like it.

I do agree with you guys. An other fact to be noted is the Oswal coin does not show the rim which is clearly seen on my and David Fore coin. I am surprised to see that this coin sold for more than the David Fore specimen after  BP and taxes.