Jerusalem, Kingdom - 1 Dirham 1244 - Crusader Imitation

[cam]

Gentlemen,

One numismatist added this coin: 1 Dirham Jerusalem, Kingdom 1244, Bates# Type 5 and 6 | CoinBrothers Catalog

I've edited it but frankly, it is not an area where I feel comfortable. Would be great if an expert will have a look, check and explain the following:

- Is it correct to name the state as Jerusalem, Kingdom without mentioning a real ruler?
- Why there was a need to make an imitation?
- Why coin was minted in Christian state in the name of Arabic ruler?
- Who was al-Salih Isma'il? (Perhaps, this guy: As-Salih Ismail al-Malik - Wikipedia ?)
- Where may I find and copy from Arabic texts from the obverse and reverse with translations?
- Are catalog references correct?
- How big is the diameter?

Thanks a lot in advance!

[Manzikert]

A few comments from a non-expert:

- Is it correct to name the state as Jerusalem, Kingdom without mentioning a real ruler? As this type was struck in the name of the Islamic ruler it seems inappropriate to attribute it to one of the kings of Jerusalem.
- Why there was a need to make an imitation? They were a trade coinage intended for use in Syria, where the moslems would presumably be resistant to coins with the cross on them.
- Why coin was minted in Christian state in the name of Arabic ruler? See previous answer
- Who was al-Salih Isma'il? (Perhaps, this guy: As-Salih Ismail al-Malik - Wikipedia ?) No, As-Salih Ismail - Wikipedia,_Emir_of_Damascus
- Where may I find and copy from Arabic texts from the obverse and reverse with translations? Sorry I can't help with this, but our member Maythem may be able to help
- Are catalog references correct? Yes, Metcalf quotes the Bates numbers and the Metcalf numbers refer to later issues without readable mints or dates. I'm afraid I don't have my copy of Malloy here to check the CCS number though. The date for this should be c.1253-1260 not 1244. The mint is uncertain: they could have been minted at Acre or Tripoli 
- How big is the diameter? They vary so I'm afraid you'd have to ask the owner this.
[edit] I forgot to say that Metcalf calls these 'imitative dracmas' rather than dirhems.

I hope this helps.

Alan

[cam]

Thanks a lot, Alan!

- As this type was struck in the name of the Islamic ruler it seems inappropriate to attribute it to one of the kings of Jerusalem.
That was my concern. Should it be Ayyubid Sultanate?

- Are catalog references correct? Yes, Metcalf quotes the Bates numbers and the Metcalf numbers refer to later issues without readable mints or dates. I'm afraid I don't have my copy of Malloy here to check the CCS number though. The date for this should be c.1253-1260 not 1244. The mint is uncertain: they could have been minted at Acre or Tripoli 

What is CCS number in the 238-9; CCS 9? Are you sure about the date? I thought that it is visible on the obverse (here is the description: Mint and date in margin segments.)

[Manzikert]

These were definitely struck by the Kingdom of Jerusalem at their mints within the kingdom, not the Ayyubid authorities, so should be attributed to the Kingdom.

The dates I gave are those given by Bates for their production, and accepted by Metcalf. Metcalf quotes the Bates publication but doesn't mention Malloy's book, which may not have even been published at the time Metcalf wrote. As I said, I don't have access to my copy of CCS at the moment so can't confirm the number.

There are several series of these imitations, and this particular variety bears two different 'frozen' dates. If the coin is well struck one might be able to read the date, but the one illustrated only has a partial marginal inscription so the date of this particular coin is uncertain (and most probably fictitious anyway!)

Alan

[cam]

These were definitely struck by the Kingdom of Jerusalem at their mints within the kingdom, not the Ayyubid authorities, so should be attributed to the Kingdom.

The dates I gave are those given by Bates for their production, and accepted by Metcalf. Metcalf quotes the Bates publication but doesn't mention Malloy's book, which may not have even been published at the time Metcalf wrote. As I said, I don't have access to my copy of CCS at the moment so can't confirm the number.

There are several series of these imitations, and this particular variety bears two different 'frozen' dates. If the coin is well struck one might be able to read the date, but the one illustrated only has a partial marginal inscription so the date of this particular coin is uncertain (and most probably fictitious anyway!)

Alan

Thanks a lot, Alan! I've updated the coin description and dates according your comments. 1 Dirham Jerusalem, Kingdom 1253-1260, Bates# Type 5 and 6 | CoinBrothers