Basic question on Mughal Silver Rupees.

[asm]

I have observed that in the Standard Catalog, the listing of silver rupees in almost all mints and for almost all emperors shows issue of coins for only some dates and date / RY combinations.

I tried to figure out the cause and saw various possibilities:

The first year date for far off mints are missing because the message of change of guard would have reached late or the new dies not been ready for minting.
The mint or the area came under Mughal control subsequent to the the emperor taking over.
In case of later Mughal emperors, the possibility of the area or the mint having slipped out of Mughal hands.
Mintage figures for particular years were low and hence specimens have not survived.
The area was engulfed in war and hence minting was suspended or reduced?
Coins were issued only on instructions of the governors / authorities and it was not required that coins be struck in every year.
Dies were struck at some central locations and handed over to the mints and in case there was no supply of dies for some particular years, the coins would be missing.
The particular design was discarded and replaced by some new design / couplet only to be brought back after a few years.

Or is it that the publishers did not have feedback for all dates?

These are very basic questions but I have not been able to get any satisfactory answers to these questions from any one yet. I hope I can have the answers here.

Another major issue which comes to mind is: Were the coins of the ancestors of the emperor current in his time or were they recalled and melted to be re-struck? What was done to the coinage of the conquered territories? Was it allowed to circulate along with the new mughal currency or was it withdrawn and melted?

I am asking these questions now, since, I have been observing for some time that sellers try to jack up prices saying that a particular date is not listed in the catalog which makes the coin rare or at least scarce.

[Bimat]

I have been observing for some time that sellers try to jack up prices saying that a particular date is not listed in the catalog which makes the coin rare or at least scarce.

That's true not only in case of Mughal coins,but also Republic India coins.I have seen some dealers asking several hundreds of rupees for a 25 or 50 paise coin just because the date/mint mark is not listed in catalog,and thus making it 'rare'. A recent example would be 2 rupees dated 2004,a single piece of Hyderabad struck 2 rupees coin is fetching 400 rupees these days

Aditya

[asm]

Peter,

I had posted this topic under the Mughal Centeral Government board as my aim was to discuss the reasons and causes of the missing dates. This point came to mind because I encountered a few instances were dealers asked for higher prices since the dates were not listed but the sole aim was to discuss if in fact there were such possibilities and not to discuss the missing dates in the catalogue.

Amit

[Salvete]

Amit,

Your list of possible reasons for the absense of some dates from KM listings will all be true in certain cases (except, maybe, the central production of dies.  Each mint had its own style, and dies were usually - maybe always? - produced locally) and it is the history of the place, nothing else, that will show you why dates might be truly missing.  And the earlier suggestion that 'if you have coins with date combinations not shown in KM, then PLEASE tell KM so that the lists can be updated' was well founded.  Maybe, eventually, some of the lists will be complete or virtually so.  The KM habit of pricing all dates the same for any one type, is execrable and extremely misleading.  If the editors knew which dates are rare and scarce, this might change.  But if anyone places much credence on these prices, regarding them as guidance as to values, he or she is skating on very thin ice.  Have I got a solution to this problem?  No!  Except to rate coins in the same way as Stan Goron has done in his book on Sultanate coins.  Prices are very volatile but rarities far less so.

Salvete

[Salvete]

......Sorry, I forgot your other very relevant point, Amit - the fact that dates are missing from KM lists is usually the result of nobody having told them that they do exist.  Then there is the other side of that issue - that some non-existent dates have found their way into the lists.  That is more difficult to prevent or remedy, of course.  It is why we need competent readers of coins to submit data, but would hope that doubtful readings can be somehow eliminated.  A case in point, unless it has been recently rectified, is Bhopal C. 12 rupees.  The earliest possible date for these is RY 12, but some incompletely read earlier dates were quoted in KM.  Why?  It can only be because somebody had misread their coins.  This cannot be altogether avoided, and it is certain that some of us are looking out for missing dates for our collections, that we could only obtain by ordering them newly struck from the gentlemen in Mysore whom we all admire so much.

'Nuff said.

Salvete

[Coinsforever]

I'm certain & quite  sure that data available at zeno is much more comprehensive than KM or any such reference catalog.


Details are quite informative at zeno pertaining to Mughal coins , hats off to moderators & members for commendable work.



Cheers

[Figleaf]

It is hard to compare zeno and KM. Both are the work of volunteer contributors. However, zeno also has volunteer editors, while KM has pro editors. I have come to believe that the volunteer editors at zeno are very much more knowledgeable about the coins than the pros. However, to get through to the pros, you have to convince them you are serious and do know more. Failing that, the pros will hire a consultant, like Mr. Stevens. This is all good and well, but Mr. Stevens has the knowledge of one person and zeno has a group of persons who, together, know more than any single person. At the same time, the zeno set-up allows for different opinions, charitable action, doubt and discussion, while KM must have yes or no.

I would say KM and zeno need each other and we would all be better off if they took more notice of each other.

Peter

[Oesho]

Catalogues, particular KM. often mentions several dates, but not illustrated.
On Zeno each coin is illustrated and misreadings can therefore often been ruled out.
The section of the Mughal Empire is quite in reasonable order, but still much need to done. Particular in the section of the Local and Princely States, requires more detailed listings, like forinstance is done for Kutch-Bhuj or Bhopal.

[Coinsforever]

like forinstance is done for Kutch-Bhuj or Bhopal.

Those Kutch & Bhopal collections at zeno are quite impressive , it is quite hard to find most of the specimens of  similar conditions.


Cheers