How Far Back Can We Go? Seventh Edition!

Hmm...
My previous research had estimated that AH 742 definitely converts to 1341, and AH 741 less certainly so. (In any case both of them were gaps.)

Looking at my sources, the year AH 742 starts in June 1341 by both converters, so that it would count even by @ttkoo's (former?) more restrictive rule about it being a majority of the AD year.

...For AH 741 in fact both converters agree that it should be 1340 (barely), with 1 Rajab falling on 21 Dec 1340 by one converter and 28 Dec 1340 by the other. I'm not sure why I decided it was 1341.
It turns out that AH 740 is (barely) also mostly in 1340 by both converters (1 Rajab = 2 Jan 1340 in one, 9 Jan 1340 in the other), so it's 1340 that has two conversion options.

It turns out that AH 742, 741, and 740 are all gaps (for that matter so is AH 739), so this is mostly a question for the future.

If it's the type I suspect it is, it apparently had multiple emissions (some of which are more precisely dated), but it's unclear what the differences are, and most of the attributed examples online are from the 2nd emission, which AFAICT was probably longer than a year.

Firstly, if I previously gave the impression that "my rule" saw the AH year being a majority of an AD year, then I apologise and I must have been confused, which is easy for me on this subject. For me it must be the majority of a solar year falling with a lunar year.

Ok, here is my two bits worth of opinion.
IF we are going to accept a date based on a lunar year, and try to fit it into a date based on a solar year, there has to be a rule, and a converter, that we can all agree on. Unless the start of a lunar year converts exactly to a period between January 1 and January 11 (approximately, depending on the occurance of leap years in one or both calendars), then there will always need to be some measure of compromise, because we will never know for certain whether the coin was actually minted within the bounds of the solar year.
Roughly every 34 lunar years, there are two of these years, where most of both (defined as "more" that half), fall in the same solar year, which is happening in 740 -741 AH. (Regarding 741-742, I don't see any issue. In the converter that I use (https://www.date-converter.com/en/h...e_vignette), 191 days of 742 AH fall within 1341 AD, yet only 174 days of 741 AH fall within 1341 AD. Clearly 742 AH corresponds to 1341, so with this converter, I don't see any issue with 742 AH).
By the same converter, 181 days of 741 AH fall within 1340 AD (slightly more than half of the lunar year). However, 185 days of 740 AH also fall within 1340 AH ( again a slight majority, BUT it is a more appropriate comparison than 741 AH).

So, to the issue at hand. I'm not advocating that we all use the converter of my choice ( I personally like the layout of the calendar which shows the whole lunar year laid out against the one or two (can there be three?) AD years, and by swiping and changing the year within the url in the address bar, it is easy to change years)

Using a formula doesn't do it for me.
Having more that one converter depending upon thoughts of how one or the other is based on Gregorian or Julian is probably fine, so long as we can all agree on the guidelines.

Should there ever be two lunar years with exactly the same amount of AD days within, then both should either be included, or excluded. I guess the same logic could be used when both AH years have a majority if AD days within.... either exclude both or, more appropriately in my opinion, include both, otherwise some coins with a very rich history will not be shown here.

Another train of my thought says that now we are in the region of very few AD dated and or dateable coins, yet there is a profundity of AH dated / dateable coins, then the years change to the hijri calendar, and it is up to the Gregorian / Julian coins to convert, and fit into the AH system. I am unsure, as we are in uncharted waters here.

What say you others who take part and have some skin in the game? Perhaps my ravings have already been discussed at length in this forum?

I'm done, and hopefully I have put it all down clearly. (be prepared for edits as I read and re-read this entry.)

Works for me. I will update the title as I normally do, but if you see a discrepancy, let me know!

That's a really nice looking coin, @JohnCondiutt.
For my mind it does help, and fills the 1341/742H gap that has bogged me down for sure.
Others may disagree, and that's OK. So unless someone has a 1341 AD coin to show then we are still stuck.

It is certainly nice to see something posted that fits in this spot, even if it does not qualify for taking us back.

...or this one: https://www.zeno.ru/showphoto.php?photo=124407

I couldn't find any 743 where the last digit went up like that.
Unfortunately I also couldn't find any example on Zeno, of either date, with the displaced dot in the second line (just above the center), so I can't assign a die match.

In any case, Jani Beg's reign seemingly started late enough in 742 AH that this coin should have been assigned to 1342 AD one way or another; I really should have caught that part, at least. (Wikipedia actually says that his reign started already into 1342.)

We await a coin from 1341 (presumably either a 742 AH from someone other than Jani Beg, or a coin datable for other reasons; I guess a 741 AH might also help, though I'm not sure if I would count that).

If this is AH 742, then AH 741 should then regress us back to 1340 CE (AH 740). Unless a 1341 CE shows up to remove all doubt.