| Author |
 Replies: 7,432 / Views: 400,505 |
|
|
|
Moderator
 United States
34467 Posts |
As promised, here is my analysis of the 1459 dated coin that I received recently: http://goccf.com/t/435356Quote:
The wait for 1460 continues Yep.  "If you climb a good tree, you get a push."
-----Ghanaian proverb
"The danger we all now face is distinguishing between what is authentic and what is performed."
-----King Adz
|
|
Moderator
 United States
191235 Posts |
Quote:
As promised, here is my analysis of the 1459 dated coin that I received recently:  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1848 Posts |
Anyone good at reading dates on Indian Islamic coins? http://goccf.com/t/436251I know I'm not a big participant in this thread, but I would like to see it continue as long as possible. I was wondering what is the next date where we expect a stall after 1460? |
|
Moderator
United States
34467 Posts |
Well I'm pretty sure that I don't have every year from the 1450s in my collection, but I know that I've got 1459 AD covered.  "If you climb a good tree, you get a push."
-----Ghanaian proverb
"The danger we all now face is distinguishing between what is authentic and what is performed."
-----King Adz
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Russian Federation
5181 Posts |
In June I gave the following estimate... Quote:Current (as of seven months ago) list of upcoming sticking points, courtesy of this thread: 1460, 1453, 1452, 1435, 1432, 1430, 1425, 1424, 1418, 1416, 1415, 1408, 1406, and then 1402 starts a run of four gaps in a row followed by a badly covered region. (As noted in the linked post, a few other dates, especially pre-1430, might actually be gaps because the relevant coins weren't actually narrowly dated; I hadn't exhaustively checked, though if/when we get stuck at 1460 again I'll probably try to figure it out more precisely.) Apparently I never got around to rechecking (and there were no further updates), but if this is correct, our next expected stall is 1453. EDIT: the 1450s, at least, are all legit, and I do recall that there was a full run from the late 1440s to 1436. I have [back in Moscow, but already photographed] an Islamic coin that the 2x2 I got it in attributed to 1452; I have no idea where to look for the date. EDIT 2: indeed, as I said, the pre-1430 dates is when the flimsy French emission dating starts. I'll have to cross-check to see which dates rest only on those, and which of those can be relied upon anyway, but this does not change the post-1430 gap list. Edited by january1may
12/07/2022 04:19 am
|
|
Moderator
United States
191235 Posts |
Thank you for re-posting that summary! Quote:but I know that I've got 1459 AD covered.  We Need that 1460 C. E. (A. H. 864) to be posted by somebody, anybody...  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1186 Posts |
For the 1450's I have 1456 and 2 1455's.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1848 Posts |
Thanks for the refresh @january1may!
So would these be the correct corresponding AH dates?
1453 (AH 857)
1452 (AH 856) (maybe)
1435 (AH 838)
1432 (AH 835)
1430 (AH 833)
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Russian Federation
5181 Posts |
Quote:
So would these be the correct corresponding AH dates?
1453 (AH 857)
1452 (AH 856) (maybe)
1435 (AH 838)
1432 (AH 835)
1430 (AH 833) Yes, that's correct as far as I can tell. Of course more AH date coverage for this century would be good in general, so don't feel limited to those specific dates! And of course 864 is the most important one now, but weirdly enough I can't find any of those for sale at the moment. It seems that Jaunpur tankas cover most of the century, and would have been an interesting series to collect if I could receive them and pay for them reliably (in Moscow) and/or wasn't worried of having trouble with antiquities laws (in Israel). If the situation in Moscow calms down and I move back there I'd probably start trying to collect those if I still could afford them by then. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1848 Posts |
I've been searching recently and I think I've found a coin, currently available for purchase, that would qualify as 1460 under the rules of this thread. It's a 1 cash coin minted under Emperor Lê Nghi Dân of Vietnam. He reigned from October 6 (or maybe 7), 1459 to June 6, 1460. Since the majority of his reign was in 1460, that could move the thread forward, correct? https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces321749.htmlI'm not sure if this fits into anyone's area of collecting and I don't know how how you guys who collect by date determine if something like this fits into your collection. There is one currently for sale on ebay, but it's a bit pricey (seems like it could be had for significantly less, though, based on the automated offer I received from the seller after adding to my watch list). There are also two Numista members who want to exchange this coin. Quote:
Yes, that's correct as far as I can tell.
Of course more AH date coverage for this century would be good in general, so don't feel limited to those specific dates! And of course 864 is the most important one now, but weirdly enough I can't find any of those for sale at the moment. I have added a few Indian AH dated coins to my collection this month, including a Jaunpur tanka dated AH 857 . The others are later 800s and one early 700s, which seems like it's probably out of reach for this thread. I am regularly checking ebay for AH 864 coins that have not been dated by the seller in the listing title. I hope your situation improves soon!  (sorry to bump the thread again without moving it forward  ) |
|
Pillar of the Community
Russian Federation
5181 Posts |
Quote:
I've been searching recently and I think I've found a coin, currently available for purchase, that would qualify as 1460 under the rules of this thread. It's a 1 cash coin minted under Emperor Lê Nghi Dân of Vietnam. He reigned from October 6 (or maybe 7), 1459 to June 6, 1460. Since the majority of his reign was in 1460, that could move the thread forward, correct? AFAICT yes? But with Vietnamese coins it's useful to make sure that there's no later imitations with the same legend, and offhand I'm not sure if that's actually true in this case (but I see no indication otherwise). We had a similar situation with Marco Barbarigo of Venice (September 1485 - August 1486, counted for 1486). This one, if anything, seems even clearer. I see one of these coins offered on a Vietnamese site for 150,000 Vietnamese dong... which sounds like a lot but it's actually about $6. I suspect delivery fees would be more than that! Assuming they even deliver outside Vietnam. |
|
Moderator
United States
191235 Posts |
Quote:
Since the majority of his reign was in 1460, that could move the thread forward, correct? Correct.  Quote:
sorry to bump the thread again without moving it forward I do it every month, so no harm. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1848 Posts |
 Sultans of Gujarat, Muhmud Shah I, AE falus AH864 GG# G181 zeno.ruEdit: Date is on the obverse(?) starting at about 8 o'clock "#1640;#1638;#1780;"=864 (edit 2: let's see if that fixed the Arabic numerals) Edited by bd251
01/13/2023 10:27 am
|
|
Moderator
United States
34467 Posts |
It's been about five months since we last had progress with this thread. Is it possible that we are ready to begin moving back again with this coin from @bd?
"If you climb a good tree, you get a push."
-----Ghanaian proverb
"The danger we all now face is distinguishing between what is authentic and what is performed."
-----King Adz
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
7978 Posts |
Edited by tdziemia
01/12/2023 8:42 pm
|
| |
Replies: 7,432 / Views: 400,505 |
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 11/22/2022 1:53 pm
