| Author |
 Replies: 10 / Views: 1,462 |
|
|
New Member
Netherlands
14 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4971 Posts |
hey spencer,
I'm very new to chinese coins, but those don't look ancient. bobbyhelmet is our resident chinese coin expert, he and some others here should be able to nail them for you.
|
|
New Member
 Netherlands
14 Posts |
Hey Chrsmat71
Thanks for reply. They seem to be fake but I'm nut 100% sure. But I see you have the same thoughts about them. If I understand you correct.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4971 Posts |
well, they may be recent coins and not fake...like they were still producing that coin type in the 20th century. again, wait to hear from the experts.
even if recent, they are still nice looking coins I think.
|
|
New Member
Netherlands
14 Posts |
Well thank you, got to go back to school I think. To learn how to read English again. Long time a go(:-
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23731 Posts |
They all appear real but badly overcleand. They stem from the Ching Lung period circa 1736-1795. They last few are later and look machine struck.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1391 Posts |
The the bottom one in the first set I think is a Japanese Mon from Edo. The example I have is cast, not struck.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1391 Posts |
1. First coin is upside down.
Emperor HSUAN TSUNG
AD 1821-1850
Reign title: TAO-KUANG, AD 1821-1850
S-1513, "BOO YUWAN" (Board of Works mint). The Manchu mint name translates to Pao-yuan or "The Source of all Currency".
2. Is correct
Emperor KAO TSUNG
AD 1736-1795
reign title: CH'IEN-LUNG, AD 1736-1795
I can't make out the mint on this one.
3. Japanese Mon from Tokyo mint. This one looks machine struck to me, but it could be the picture. I think it should be cast.
The pictures don't seem to be in order for the next ones.
|
|
New Member
Netherlands
14 Posts |
Hello
Thank you I could have switcht the pictures. The coins look better on higher resolution. I'v croped them to small and 320. That is not the most beautifull. So they seem genuine, thats better.
But what kind of value could they have? I have seen some, but slightly other than my coins. All in a reach from 100 to several 1000. So that acctualy say's nothing.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
164 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
508 Posts |
It is hard to talk about each coin when there are so many different without labels or such.
The coins with two marks on the back are from China. One of them is struck by machine (smoother fields) which indicates it is one of the most recent (late 1800s-early 1900s).
The coin with only one mark on the back is a one mon from Japan, as was said. They don't look as coarse but are still cast. I think they used finer casting sand to achieve a smoother background.
None of them are ancient with the oldest possible being mid-1700s. They all appear real.
I think an optimistic full retail value may be $1-2 each, but they are more often sold for less than that.
|
| |
Replies: 10 / Views: 1,462 |
|
Posted 04/02/2013 10:51 am
