Author Topic: Nepal, mohars of Rajendra  (Read 265 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Manzikert

  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1 661
Nepal, mohars of Rajendra
« on: April 18, 2021, 02:33:15 PM »
I recently acquired a small lot of Nepalese coins, including some mohars of Rajendra (1816-1847). I am however getting a little confused about them.

Rhodes, Gabrisch and Valdetarro list 4 varieties, of which 1.3 has 'sri3', but apparently only listed for samvat 1740.

Krause lists three types, 565.1, 565.2 and 566. 565.1 is stated to have 'moon, sri, sun' at upper reverse centre, 565.2 to have 'three pellets, sri, three pellets', and 566 'three pellets, sri3, three pellets'

However, of the four Rajendra pieces I recently acquired three are of the 'three pellets, sri3, three pellets' variety, but years 1741, 1745 and 1749. The fourth (1738) coin is actually of a seemingly unlisted 'moon, sri3, sun' variety (see below). I also notice that there are several of this variety of various dates on Zeno credited to Gusev.

Does anyone (Gusev?) have (or know of) a more correct listing of the varieties of Nepalese coins for this period?

Alan

Offline Gusev

  • Moderator
  • Meritorious Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 965
Re: Nepal, mohars of Rajendra
« Reply #1 on: April 18, 2021, 04:47:49 PM »
I'll try to answer in order:
1) The RGV book contains a complete list of varieties.
2) All Rajendra Mohars have Sri 3 on the reverse (reverse - no date). On Zeno, the obverse and reverse are sometimes rearranged.
3) Variety 1.3 indicates the presence of Sri 3 on the obverse and reverse (see photo).
4) In Krause, type 565.1 (SE 1738) is indicated erroneously. There are no varieties for SE 1738.

In my RGV book on page 146 there is a handwritten note (1766, BM).
The question is - is there this handwriting in your book?

Igor
"Those at the top of the mountain didn't fall there."- Marcus Washling.

Offline Manzikert

  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1 661
Re: Nepal, mohars of Rajendra
« Reply #2 on: April 18, 2021, 05:55:35 PM »
Ah, thank you Igor: that explains the main problem, I'd stupidly missed reading the 'obv.' in the description of type 1.3, so three are the normal type 1 variety.

However, I still can't find a mention of the type shown in my post above, with the moon and sun beside the 'sri' and 'sri3' on both sides: perhaps I'm still being stupid :(.

In my book No. 1766 lists two specimens in the BM (5.47, 5.43), but there is no addition in manuscript.

Alan

Offline Gusev

  • Moderator
  • Meritorious Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 965
Re: Nepal, mohars of Rajendra
« Reply #3 on: April 18, 2021, 07:42:04 PM »
Thanks Alan.
I was inattentive (or is it the consequences of Covid?).
Now I can see the difference on the reverse of your coin.
Yes, in the RGV this variety is absent.
Congratulations, you have a rare KM 565.1 coin. It was a good buy. :like:
So there is no mistake in Krause.
Can I show this coin to Zeno? Or will you show it yourself?

The RGV book was given to me by Rhodes, maybe this is his personal revision on page 146.

Igor
"Those at the top of the mountain didn't fall there."- Marcus Washling.

Offline Manzikert

  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1 661
Re: Nepal, mohars of Rajendra
« Reply #4 on: April 19, 2021, 10:52:43 PM »
Dear Igor

Thanks again for clearing that up, coin now properly identified on my database.

No, there is no addition in my copy of RGV, but the note in yours is referring to the 2 mohars, and I had looked at the 1766 1 mohar entry at first.

I now have a parcel of half and quarter mohars on the way, so I might be pestering you again :)

Alan

Offline Gusev

  • Moderator
  • Meritorious Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 965
Re: Nepal, mohars of Rajendra
« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2021, 09:31:18 PM »
I showed the coin to Zeno, do you agree?
https://www.zeno.ru/showphoto.php?photo=273519&nocache=1
"Those at the top of the mountain didn't fall there."- Marcus Washling.

Offline Manzikert

  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1 661
Re: Nepal, mohars of Rajendra
« Reply #6 on: April 21, 2021, 10:11:27 PM »
Dear Igor

Thank you for doing that: I had intended doing it myself, but hadn't got round to it. My short term memory can be very dodgy :(

Alan