Author Topic: Mughal, Aurangzeb Surat; AH 1091 RY 25 (Die Error)  (Read 2276 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline asm

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6 914
  • Ahmedabad, India
Mughal, Aurangzeb Surat; AH 1091 RY 25 (Die Error)
« on: April 05, 2009, 03:39:46 AM »
This coin seems to be that of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb Alamgir from the Surat Mint. However the date reads 1910. Is this a date error? In fact is the last . a part of the date?
Amit
« Last Edit: April 06, 2009, 02:05:37 PM by asm »
"It Is Better To Light A Candle Than To Curse The Darkness"

Offline Rangnath

  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2 714
Re: Mughal, Aurangzeb?
« Reply #1 on: April 05, 2009, 06:46:09 PM »
I suppose the date could be AH 1091.  Of course, then we have a minor problem of the reynal year of 25.  If the date was AH 1091, then the reynal year should be 23/4.  I wonder if close is good enough for Aurangzeb.  I doubt it.
richie

Offline asm

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6 914
  • Ahmedabad, India
Re: Mughal, Aurangzeb?
« Reply #2 on: April 06, 2009, 07:02:03 AM »
I suppose the date could be AH 1091.  Of course, then we have a minor problem of the reynal year of 25.  If the date was AH 1091, then the reynal year should be 23/4.  I wonder if close is good enough for Aurangzeb.  I doubt it.
richie
Richie,
I was absolutely confused with this one. I did try 1091 but it did not gel with RY 25. Was the die maker really stupid? or is it possible that there was a mismatch of the two parts of the die used for striking the coin and this is the result. I do remember having read somewhere (mostlikely a post on this forum) of such a happening. Is that possible? An engraving error and a mismatched die on one coin, sounds suspicious, does'n it?
Amit
"It Is Better To Light A Candle Than To Curse The Darkness"

Offline Oesho

  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3 400
Re: Mughal, Aurangzeb?
« Reply #3 on: April 06, 2009, 01:44:05 PM »

 The date is clearly 1(0)91/Ry.25. This an error date. The AH-date 1091 runs from 23/01/1680 to 10/01/1681. Ry.25 runs from 04/09/1681 to 23/08/1682. So there is a gap from 10/01/1681 to 04/09/1681. (all calculations according to the than prevailing Julian Calendar).
The mint of Surat was one of the major mints of the Empire and it is hardly imaginable that there would have been made such an error. Nevertheless they did, see rupee AH197 for 1092/Ry.24 ZENO #15188.
Did they mismatch dies, the next issue Yr.25 with an earlier or incomplete engraved AH-date obverse die?

There is a series of rupees in the name of Aurangzeb Alamgir, which show similar AH date 1(0)91. They were struck under Sikandar Shah of Bijapur, acknowledging the Mughal Emperor before the city was actually occupied by Aurangzeb. These coins are all known with the same date (AH1(0)91) and with Ry.'s 23, 24 and 26. See ZENO: #51719; #51720 & #27214.
Did they copy a Surat rupee during Ry.25?? Not very likely as the fabric of the above rupee differs completely from the Bijapur rupees.
Who did produce this coin, if it is not a mint error? The mintmarks are identical to the Surat rupees Yr.23, 24, and 26. As no other arguments are left against it, one has to conclude that it is a mint error made at the Surat mint.

Offline asm

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6 914
  • Ahmedabad, India
Re: Mughal, Aurangzeb Surat; AH 1091 RY 25 (Die Error)
« Reply #4 on: April 06, 2009, 01:59:37 PM »
Oesho,
Thank you for comming to my rescue once again. I was very very confused. I can imagine one error. It can happen, but two....It appeared to be impossible, specially from such a major mint as Surat. However, it is possible, as I now see. Thank you once again for your help.
Amit
« Last Edit: April 06, 2009, 02:06:06 PM by asm »
"It Is Better To Light A Candle Than To Curse The Darkness"

Offline Rangnath

  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2 714
Re: Mughal, Aurangzeb Surat; AH 1091 RY 25 (Die Error)
« Reply #5 on: April 07, 2009, 07:11:18 PM »
Thanks for posting this coin Amit.  Error coins are a real challenge to my confidence level in reading these coins. Thanks so much for your analysis Oesho! 
richie

Offline asm

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6 914
  • Ahmedabad, India
Re: Mughal, Aurangzeb Surat; AH 1091 RY 25 (Die Error)
« Reply #6 on: April 08, 2009, 06:49:19 AM »
In the same lot I found another 1910 coin with the RY 24. Unfortunately it is in a very poor state. I had returned it to the trader, until I read Oeshos reply. I retrived it last night. I will try to fet a good picture and post it up one of these days.
Amit
"It Is Better To Light A Candle Than To Curse The Darkness"

Offline Figleaf

  • Administrator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33 093
Re: Mughal, Aurangzeb Surat; AH 1091 RY 25 (Die Error)
« Reply #7 on: April 08, 2009, 01:04:52 PM »
I don't know, but I can speculate. It is unlikely that dies were made in pairs, because there are always special problems with dies, most often cracks or chips falling off, so that they don't wear out at the same speed. Dies dated 1091 were good until 10/01/1681 and dies dated regnal year 24 could be used until 04/09/1681. Production of new dies with regnal year 25 would have started a bit early, so as to have a sufficient number of new dies available on 04/09/1681. Likewise, destroying dies dated 1091 would not have been an urgent task, so they may have been lying around for a while. That gives rise to the following possible scenarios:

1. Before 10/01/1681 a new regnal year 24 die is needed and someone inadvertently picks up a regnal year 25 die.
2. Before 10/01/1681 the mint runs out of regnal year 24 dies, they shrug and use a regnal year 25 die instead.

or

3. After 04/09/1681 the mint runs out of dies dated 1092, but they still have some 1091 dies lying around, waiting for destruction. They shrug and use them.
4. After 04/09/1681 a die dated 1092 is needed and someone inadvertently picks up a die dated 1091.

In view of the likeness of the numbers 1 and 2 in Arabic script, I think scenario 4 is the most likely. These scenarios are becoming more likely as the mint is bigger and busier.

Peter
« Last Edit: April 08, 2009, 01:07:21 PM by Figleaf »
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

Offline asm

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6 914
  • Ahmedabad, India
Re: Mughal, Aurangzeb Surat; AH 1091 RY 25 (Die Error)
« Reply #8 on: April 08, 2009, 01:46:48 PM »
Peter,
Thank you for the details on the possible reasons for the error. It was indeed very enlightening.
I post here the coin with the date 1910 (for 1091) with RY 24. The obverse image is somewhat unfocused and I will correct it soon.
Amit
"It Is Better To Light A Candle Than To Curse The Darkness"

Offline Rangnath

  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2 714
Re: Mughal, Aurangzeb Surat; AH 1091 RY 25 (Die Error)
« Reply #9 on: April 10, 2009, 05:18:54 AM »
I like your explanations Peter; clear and logical.  Thanks.
richie