News:

Sign up for the monthly zoom events by sending a PM with your email address to Hitesh

Main Menu

Akbar, AE Dam,Narnol mint, scarce Ilahi type

Started by capnbirdseye, June 08, 2012, 03:41:37 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

capnbirdseye

Another with the date AH977 visible

20.60g
Vic

asm

I feel a little bit of cleaning will help a lot to be able to read the coin..........

Amit
"It Is Better To Light A Candle Than To Curse The Darkness"

rja

I'm going to hazard a guess that this is a Darykot dam for Shah Jahan.  The mint name is a decent match.  Compare with Zeno 98946.

capnbirdseye

Hi rja & welcome to the forum.

I do believe you could be right! it does compare favourably with the zeno photo, I'll retitle this thread to draw the attention of Oesho or our other resident Mughal experts who can confirm it one way or another

The only problem with it being Shah Jahan is what appears to be the date AH977 which makes it Akbar but of course it could still be Darykot mint


Vic
Vic

abhinumis

This is puzzling! 977 does indicate Akbar but Zeno does not mention daryakot as a akbar copper mint. I will definitely keep my eyes on this coin!
Dr.Abhishek

capnbirdseye

Here's a close up of the mint, I'm presuming it looks like the 'Nol' of Narnol but if so what is the extension off the letter L

Overlord did a drawing of a coin from Narnol & I don't think mine is anything like

http://www.worldofcoins.eu/forum/index.php/topic,2491.msg12700.html#msg12700
Vic

capnbirdseye

Oesho (Jan Lingen) confirms on zeno that it is indeed of Narnol mint, 99% of the coins of this mint are of the 'falus narnol' type. That type was produced at least up to AH1007. however it seems my coin is a scarce Ilahi type as described and illustrated in the Lucknow Museum Catalogue (#1148).

What I thought was the date 977 is actually a part of the Ilahi month, probably Shahrewar

KM##32.21 is wrong and not of Narnol, but of Saharanpur.
Vic

Oesho

QuoteKM##32.21 is wrong and not of Narnol, but of Saharanpur.
KM#32.21 is correct as far as the data is concerned, but the put the wrong illustration with it.

drnsreedhar

Thank you capnbirdseye and other exponents in Mughal coins for this post.
Here is a similar one. Narnul is clear, Di and Falus can be seen. Legend above Falus is cofusing to me. Can that be "Jahangiri"? But "nim" of "ngir" usually seen is not visible. Is it "Shah jaha ni"? Please do help
Dr.Sreedhar