half rupee

Started by Guillaume Hermann, July 04, 2022, 09:57:06 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Guillaume Hermann

Hello,
The following coins... The first is already "half identified" by Figleaf : an Indian half rupee, possibly from Gwalior. But can you please confirm Gwalior and find the period? Thank you!
Silver, 5,50 g, 16 mm.
https://www.numismatique.com/forum/topic/21369-inde-1-demi-roupie-gwalior/
Gwalior.jpg

Manzikert

East India Company, Bombay presidency, Surat half rupee, in name of Alamgir struck c.1754-1770's, as Pridmore 71-73 but no regnal year visible.

Alan

Guillaume Hermann


asm

Looks more like an issue under Muhammad Shah but the rulers name as well as the mint name and both dates are off flan.

I would attribute this to the Mughal period.

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

Figleaf

@Guillaume Hermann: Looking at pictures on the net, I am getting the feeling that both eminent members could be correct. As the EIC acquired more power, it started to imitate popular coins with names of rulers not necessarily still alive. The originals and the EIC imitations can in many cases be distinguished by regnal year or "mintmark". This coin shows neither, as the die used was too large for the flan, perhaps it was a 1 rupee die used on the ½ Rupee flan. Unfortunately, this affects the tradability of the coin, as informed collectors will want a specimen that shows information that clearly attributes the coin.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

Manzikert

I will happily bow to your superior knowledge Amit!

However, the mintmark is the flower just visible in the loop of the 's' on the reverse (of both specimens) which Pridmore shows appearing on the EIC rupees of this type in 1147 H/yr 17, and becomes frozen through the periods of Ahmad Shah and Alamgir II into the 1770's. About 1800 the EIC started putting 'secret marks' into the dotted diacritical marks on the obverse, so they can't be later than 1800.

I assume my nearly identical specimen, which I had based the identification on, could be reclassified as 'Mughal, probably Muhammad Shah (1719-1748), half rupee, Surat mint' or do we have to fall back to 'Mughal or EIC, half rupee 1734 to c.1800, Surat mint'?

Alan

asm

Quote from: Manzikert on July 05, 2022, 09:03:20 AMI assume my nearly identical specimen, which I had based the identification on, could be reclassified as 'Mughal, probably Muhammad Shah (1719-1748), half rupee, Surat mint' or do we have to fall back to 'Mughal or EIC, half rupee 1734 to c.1800, Surat mint'?

Alan
No. This one (the second image) is in the name of Shah Alam II with the posthumous RY 5X and should be an issue of Surat under BEIC.However there are a lot of confusions about the coins of this period.
The British had taken over the mint from the Nawab and had shifted the minting to Mumbai (the fixed RY 46 coins issued from the New Mumbai Mint). So it is still not clear as to who is responsible for the minting of these coins. It could well be the Nawab minting these from a private mint - or - some entity other than either the East India Company and the Nawab, minting the coins with the mint name Surat - since Surat coins were accepted over a large area as trade coins. A few years back these had been attributed to minting by the French - till this theory was discarded as there was no French presence in the area at that point in time.

So presently these are considered as Nawab of Surat issues - till the time more information on the authority responsible for minting can be confirmed.
"It Is Better To Light A Candle Than To Curse The Darkness"

asm

Quote from: Manzikert on July 05, 2022, 09:03:20 AMHowever, the mintmark is the flower just visible in the loop of the 's' on the reverse (of both specimens) which Pridmore shows appearing on the EIC rupees of this type in 1147 H/yr 17, and becomes frozen through the periods of Ahmad Shah and Alamgir II into the 1770's. About 1800 the EIC started putting 'secret marks' into the dotted diacritical marks on the obverse, so they can't be later than 1800.

Alan

Alan, unfortunately Indian numismatics is not so simple. The period 1147/17 will be the reign of Muhammad Shah - Mumbai was then under BEIC and Surat under Mughal control or around this time the independent Nawab of Surat control.

I regard the coins issued by BEIC till much later as Mughal issues as these were issued under permission of the Mughal ruler - just like the coins of various Mughal governors.

The symbol that you are referring to is observed in the coins of Mumbai, Surat, Bharuch at different times. So this is a bit more complicated. In fact it is likely that some Surat Rupees (coins struck at Bhaunagar with the mint name Surat) struck at Bhaunagar (refer Jan Lingen's article) also have a similar mark.

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

Guillaume Hermann

Interesting, thanks! I completed the explanation on numismatique.com
How difficult...
I presume this Muhammad Shah is the emperor 1719-1748?