Aurangzeb (AH1068-1118), Paisa, Haidarabad mint, AH1106/49 (Error Date?)

[Overlord]

Aurangzeb Alamgir (AH1068-1118 / 1658-1707AD), Anonymous Paisa, Haidarabad mint, AH1106/Ry 49 (error date?), KM#285.3

Mass=13.3 g
Compare with the Half Paisa of the same mint posted here

Obverse Zarb Haidarabad (Struck at Haidarabad), 1106 (AH Year)



Reverse Julus Mubarak Sanah 49 [In the forty-ninth year (of the emperor's) auspicious reign]



The AH year on the coin does not correspond to the regnal year. Either the AH year should be 1116 or the RY should be 39. Here are the close-ups of the dates:

[Salvete]

Forgive me, Overlord, if I speak out of turn - without the coin in my hand, but I had thought the big dot in the middle of the date is merely decorative.  If so, the two ciphers to the right seem to read '18' which would make the date '1118' which is probably OK for the more legible RY 49.  The engraving is often so crudely executed on coppers that it is hard to see exactly what was put onto the coin deliberately and what has beeen 'added' or altered by years of corrosion, circulation and abuse, so if I am wrong about this, please excuse my intervention.

Salvete

[Oesho]

The correct date combination for Ry.49, would be either AH1116 or 1117.
Reading of the Ry. is also a bit problematical. It might be Ry.39. The correct date combination for Ry.39 is AH1106 or AH1107.
Looking again somewhat more carefully at the images, I would suggest the date is AH1107/Ry.39.

[Overlord]

Perhaps you are right, Oesho. But no matter how many times I look at the coin, I see a "4"(9), not a "3"(9). Here is another attempt at a close-up image:


Here is the 1/2 Paisa (7.2 g), which has the same AH date but different RY (38), for visual comparison:




The last symbol on the obverse, which Salvete pointed out, is not visible on this one.

[Salvete]

Nice coin, Overlord.  I often find that, if available, another coin of the same or similar vintage is often a reliable guide to the reading of a badly worn or damaged coin  - especially coppers, which appear to have often been less carefully engraved.  I have had the same problems with Bhopal quarter annas that are quite badly worn.  The answer in this last case, since the coins are not scarce, was to seek out better specimens.  Your post also points out the wisdom of getting better coins if available.
Thanks
Barry

[Figleaf]

Yes, quite illuminating. In my innocence, I would read the regnal year on the second coin as 38. The rightmost part of the 3 is weakly struck. Aha! could that be the case on the first coin also? Well, there is this greenish area on Overlord's coin that could be IT. Except that I don't think it is. Especially looking at the fine picture in the first post of this thread, I see a P-like shape my mind cannot bend into an Arabic 3. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like a 4 either to me, but that may be my inexperience with how the figures are shaped at this time/place. I just don't know, but I guess the engraver had a happy evening the day before he cut this die.

On to the date. I'll take the big dot as a decoration. Naively, I read 1248. That can't be. Everybody reads the second digit as a 1. OK, a 1 it is. The third digit looks like a 4 to me and that's confirmed by the second coin. Right. So if we take the date as 1148, we are in another reign, I suppose, and all bets on what the correct regnal year would be are off. If this type (the emperor's name is not on the coin) wasn't struck in that reign, the date must necessarily be an error or I have again read something wrong.

Peter

[Salvete]

This has been a wonderful academic exercise, Figleaf, and there are nearly as many readings as there have been readers  .  The true expert who had his say some time ago is, of course, Oesho.  He spoke once, and has not changed his mind.  He has more chance than most of the rest of us of being right, but even he would be more likely to do so with the coin in his hand - and only one of us has had that privilege.  At the risk of being accused of being a Spoil-Sport, may I suggest that, as this is probably not a particularly important coin, and since much better specimens of its type are readily available, maybe we should move on ......  ?  Unless the owner wants to post it on to one of us, who will post it on to the next (and so on ad nauseam) until we have a concensus, or the coin gets lost in the post (shouldn't take too long ........  ....)
Barry 

[Overlord]

Unless the owner wants to post it on to one of us, who will post it on to the next (and so on ad nauseam) until we have a concensus, or the coin gets lost in the post (shouldn't take too long ........  ....)
Barry 

Master said to send coin to friend human. Og put coin in bottle, write "To Barry", and throw bottle in the Arabian Sea. Hope it reach friend human soon. 

Og

[Salvete]

Nice to see that there are still some of us left with a GSOH.  .
Buzz

[Figleaf]

Watch out! What Og say, Og do. Ask any inhabitant of Overlordgarh.

Peter

[Oesho]

Dear Overlord and other contributers, The second coin, indeed is a charming example of a copper coin, it is clearly dated AH1106/Ry.38, which is a correct date combination and struck between 12.08.1694 - 05.04.1695.
Of the initial coin you up-loaded the space for the first digit is rather cramped. Looking at the enlargements, I still can't see a 4 in it. It is much more looking like a 3, but the 'flag' of the 3 is so cramped together that at first sight one may read it as a 4.
Furthermore the dating of the official coins of Aurangzeb are almost without exception correctly dated. If a wrong date turns-up, beware, it might be a counterfeit are issues of another authority (Marathas)

[asm]

Dear Oesho,

I refer to your observations and agree that it is very rarely that one comes across unmatched or mis matched date errors on Imperial Mughal issues. I have also noted your views on the possibility of the digit being 3 is more than that of it being a 4. How ever as we discussed here, it did happen. Just for the sake of an argument (and I'm not in any way challenging your opinion), is there even a remote possibility that the coin was struck with a mis matached pair of dies?

Amit