Walking Back From 1600 With Dated Coins

The perfect pair!

Interesting to see double-armed crosses on a French coin @tdz.

Here is a Drier from Brandenburg with the date on both sides (1556):

Here is a 3 Kreuzer from the German Free City of Isny:

And here's mine, this one dated 1556, which I forgot to post yesterday...



I used to think I had a coin dated 1555, but apparently the date is very unclear on that one. My next possible entry is 1554.

1555 C.E. AH Sur Empire 1 Paisa

this is my last until 1517

I'm reminded of a discussion I've participated in, shortly a few years before Charles III became king, about which name he would choose if he takes the throne; at the time it was widely suggested that it might not be "Charles III" because Charles I and Charles II were some of the most unpopular English/British monarchs (and he might not want to associate himself with those), and the usually proposed alternative was George VII.

His full name was Charles Philip Arthur George, so those four would be the main candidates (though AFAIK technically he could have chosen anything). Obviously Arthur was out, not least because of the regnal number, as Arthur I would be pretentious and Arthur II invalid.
I mentioned that, as Philip, he would probably have been Philip II; this was interpreted as (incorrectly) referring to the (now late and fondly remembered) Duke of Edinburgh, who, of course, is not included in the British regnal numbers. I clarified that I was actually referring to Philip of Spain, from his joint reign with Mary Tudor (though apparently he technically never had an official coronation as King of England).

I was answered with a lengthy paragraph by (also now late and fondly remembered) AJP Crown, whose response I want to quote in full...


I do wonder what the actual general opinion is on this point. CCF would probably be a good place to ask...

(Of course I do have to admit that Philip of Spain - if he counted - was one of the very few English monarchs less popular than the Charleses, so formerly-Prince Charles was extremely unlikely to have named himself Philip II anyway. Philip I was probably theoretically possible, but in any case George VII was far more likely.
Ultimately he ended up taking the simple option of Charles III - probably partly because he'd been known as Charles for ages, and partly because Liz Truss already referred to him by that name before he officially made a choice.)

My own coin for 1554 is closely related to @ttkoo's entry for 1555: a thick Suri paisa of Muhammad Adil Shah, but dated 961 AH.



Similar dimensions too: 21x20 mm, 20.51 grams.

It might be hard to quite internalize, especially for people unfamiliar with chunky Indian coppers, what it means for a 21 mm coin to weigh over 20 grams...



I don't think I've ever measured the thickness of this coin, but from the pictures I estimated that it's probably about 7 mm thick - a third of its diameter. (In other words, a stack of three such paisas would reach about as high as a paisa standing on edge.)
Very few circulating coins, and AFAIK no modern ones, reach anywhere near that ratio; even the infamously thick British round £1 coin required a stack of seven to match the diameter.

Looking good, everyone!