| Author |
 Replies: 5,921 / Views: 237,988 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Australia
2526 Posts |
Quote:
I rechecked again and looks like that one wasn't my error! If it was a mistake it wasn't one of mine; my source data say 1344/745 very clearly.
(I sent you a PM with more details.) My humble apologies @j1m. Things have changed since I sent you a list of my collection in times past. The 1343 / 744 is now in question as explained in my return PM. (I am an older model, and the wheels are starting to fall off.... )The Ox moves slowly, but the Earth is patient.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
188437 Posts |
Quote:
1343 - tdziemia, Spence  |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
7940 Posts |
I think j1m has posed a reasonable question.
The July, 1344 and December, 1344 emissions are both beleived to have been sruck in Antwerp. That means the July emission was definitely just a few months. But indeed, with the mints generally shutting down sometime in December for Christmas, it's not clear when the coins of the later emission might have been struck.
The easily accessible reference (Witte, Vol. 1) has no info on the timing (in fact, they guess 1347). So that means it was later scholarship that placed these two types in 1344.
|
|
Moderator
United States
188437 Posts |
Ah, okay, so we are stuck at 1344? Please confirm and I will change the title accordingly.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
2526 Posts |
Quote:
Ah, okay, so we are stuck at 1344? Please confirm and I will change the title accordingly It looks that way, jbuck. Seems like a roadblock. The Ox moves slowly, but the Earth is patient.
|
|
Moderator
United States
95981 Posts |
Quote:
@Dearborn, glad you're enjoying it, I am too!
Hoping we can get past the roadblocks that are coming, and get to see your 1280 in a HFBGWG eventually. Thanks ttk - I hope I can post them here as well (when/if the time comes) |
|
Moderator
United States
188437 Posts |
Quote:
It looks that way, jbuck. Seems like a roadblock. Bummer. Title reverted. We Need - 1344 C. E. (A. H. 745) |
|
Pillar of the Community
Russian Federation
5173 Posts |
Lightly updated list of upcoming dates, 1344 to 1299. [I originally planned to stop at 1300, but decided to add 1299 because I didn't want to end the listing on a gap.] (...I left tdziemia's entry in because it fits my criteria for questionable listings, but of course it's unlikely to count for advancing the thread.) 1344 (AH 745) - tdziemia? 1343 - tdziemia, Spence 1342 - ttkoo 1341 (AH 742; AH 741?) - none found 1340 (AH 740) - Spence? 1339 - tdziemia 1338 - EddieDiz, Spence, tdziemia, ttkoo 1337 - tdziemia 1336 (AH 736) - none found 1335 - ttkoo 1334 - january1may, tdziemia 1333 - Spence, ttkoo 1332 - ttkoo 1331 (AH 731) - none found 1330 (AH 730) - EddieDiz? 1329 - Spence, tdziemia, ttkoo 1328 (AH 728) - none found 1327 - Spence; ttkoo 1326 - ttkoo 1325 - bd251, tdziemia, ttkoo 1324 - ttkoo 1323 - ttkoo; january1may? 1322 - ttkoo 1321 - ttkoo 1320 - Spence, ttkoo; JohnConduitt (frozen date) 1319 - Spence, ttkoo 1318 - ttkoo 1317 - ttkoo; zorosenpai? 1316 - ttkoo 1315 - ttkoo 1314 - ttkoo 1313 - ttkoo 1312 - ttkoo 1311 - Spence, ttkoo 1310 - ttkoo 1309 (AH 709) - none found 1308 - ttkoo (AH 708) 1307 (AH 706; AH 707?) - ttkoo? (AH 707) 1306 (AH 705) - none found 1305 - ttkoo 1304 - ttkoo 1303 - ttkoo 1302 - ttkoo 1301 (AH 700) - ttkoo? 1300 (AH 699) - none found 1299 - ttkoo As previously mentioned, I'll try to do a 13th century expansion if/when we get through the roadblocks in the 1340s and 1330s, and/or after the Walking Back by Dates thread reaches 1200, if that happens earlier. I'm expecting it to mostly consist of gaps, though. Quote:
The 1343 / 744 is now in question as explained in my return PM. For context: this is the coin from this post on the Walking Back by Dates thread. I must have skimped on my Zeno check at the time; there are multiple comments on Zeno suggesting that the lettering reads 743 and not 744. In any case it's not 745. (I believe you're better than most people at reading awkwardly written Arabic legends, so feel free to comment on your reading in that thread! Not sure if it's topical for this thread, though.) [EDIT: turns out there's been two of them posted in that thread - one on page 62, which I linked to, and another on page 67, attributed to 743 this time. Definitely worth discussing there.] |
|
Moderator
United States
34409 Posts |
Not adding more to this thread other than to post another example of @tdz's coin (with a heartfelt thx to them!):   "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
Australia
2526 Posts |
Quote:
For context: this is the coin from this post on the Walking Back by Dates thread. I must have skimped on my Zeno check at the time; there are multiple comments on Zeno suggesting that the lettering reads 743 and not 744. In any case it's not 745. Yes, I'm surprised that you missed it previously. The vast majority of examples on Zeno are described as "743 or 744", probably due to lack of good interpretation of the reverse side script. There are three or four from memory (could be more) that are definite about 743, even going so far as to suggest that it is a clear read. And referencing Khromov, which I don't have so I can't comment on it. Other few other sources are definite on 744 in Zeno, and of course, @Grinya's contribution to Numista. With hindsight, I wouldn't have put either coin up as a definite date. Quote:
(I believe you're better than most people at reading awkwardly written Arabic legends, so feel free to comment on your reading in that thread! Not sure if it's topical for this thread, though.) If it is awkward Arabic it is unlike any that I have seen. To me it more resembles Uyghur or Chagatai, but I have very limited experience in this.Quote:
[EDIT: turns out there's been two of them posted in that thread - one on page 62, which I linked to, and another on page 67, attributed to 743 this time. Definitely worth discussing there.] Yes, I am sometimes quite dyslexic with numerals. and I am easily confused with nailing down the correct date conversions ...1342 / 743....1343 / 744...1344 / 745 etc. Luckily I have you to help me through these difficulties.  The Ox moves slowly, but the Earth is patient.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Russian Federation
5173 Posts |
Here's a Numismall entry on that type, which gives more context on the confusion... Quote:
Very interesting type with a lot of history - the long arabic inscription on this coin is very blundered and confused and was not read until 1920's, when Hermitage orientalist R.Fasmer suggested the inscription should be read as "seven hundred and fourty nine" (that is, the written out date). In 1954, the famous numismatist S.Yanina suggested the legend should be read as "Struck in Saray al-Jadid, 16 (to a) dang", but only a few years later changed her reading to agree with the earlier reading of R.Fasmer. In 1961 she suggested the inscription should be read as "Zarb Qarm in Seven hundred and fourty four". However, this type is often found in the lower Volga region and in Bulgar, so it is far from certain it was minted in Qarm. The current reading is "Zarb Qarm, seven hundredand fourty three". The last number is sometimes read as "four", but coins bearing a clear date "744" seem to be unknown, and it would seem that all coins of this type are dated to 743 (perhaps a frozen date). TL/DR: 743 seems to be a more plausible reading but it's so badly written that no one's quite sure. Quote:
Not adding more to this thread other than to post another example of @tdz's coin (with a heartfelt thx to them!) Indeed another example of the same exact type (December 1344 emission, legend ending BRABANCIE). I do wonder how long they've been minted for; there were several other types of gros tournois minted at Antwerp in the 1340s (mostly in the leuweengroot series), and I couldn't quite figure out if the mintages were parallel or not. AFAICT the best estimate for the (re)start of the leuweengroot mintage is January 1346; if this means that the gros au quadrilobe had been no longer minted by then, this would almost make the BRABANCIE subtype a datable 1345 coin. I'm not sure if the records are precise enough to tell. AFAICT the catalogs tend to gloss over that period. |
|
Moderator
United States
188437 Posts |
Quote:
Not adding more to this thread other than to post another example of @tdz's coin Very nice!  |
|
Moderator
United States
188437 Posts |
Just a reminder...  We Need - 1344 C. E. (A. H. 745)  |
|
Moderator
United States
188437 Posts |
New month, new bump!  We Need - 1344 C. E. (A. H. 745)  |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
2526 Posts |
1344 AR dang Juchid Mongols  The Ox moves slowly, but the Earth is patient.
|
| |
Replies: 5,921 / Views: 237,988 |
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 06/05/2025 09:40 am
