| Author |
 Replies: 3,989 / Views: 390,335 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1896 Posts |
1698 AUSTRIA THALER of LEOPOLD the 'Hogmouth' :   This large (~ 42mm) silver coin is from the roller die era, causing it to have a slight curvature. In spite of its impressive dimensions and great detail, it's a relatively easy piece to obtain in nice quality for under a thousand. Later versions have a more prominent date; on this one the year is de-emphasized almost to the point of being illegible. I missed posting my 1700 German coin. :(
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Belgium
2895 Posts |
1697AD AH1108 India, Mughal empire Silver rupee Mint : Akbarnagar Regnal year 41 of Abul Muzaffar Muhi-ud-Din Mohammad bin Aurangzeb, (1618-1707) Imperial title (1656-1707): Alamgir ("world-seizer or universe-seizer") 6th Mughal emperor   |
|
Pillar of the Community
3772 Posts |
  20 Grani 1696 of the Kingdom of Naples and Sicily (under Spanish control) |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1156 Posts |
1696 Saxony - Albertine, Thaler of Friedrich August I, Dresden mint.   Edited by jgenn
10/20/2014 10:44 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1896 Posts |
1696 GREAT BRITAIN CROWN, a sea salvaged coin of William the 3rd, from the wreck of the H.M.S Association. Google it. It's an epic historical maritime tragedy. 800 souls lost due to a navigational mistake.  
|
|
Valued Member
United States
220 Posts |
I had my 1696 waiting in the wings for a 1697, but does that one count? I love Petrus's posts (and the wealth of knowledge), but there is not a 1697 date on it.
|
|
Moderator
  United States
190950 Posts |
I am assuming the AH1108 date is clearly visible on the coin. If that is the case, it counts.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3772 Posts |
Quote:
but there is not a 1697 date on it. As per first post in this topic: Quote:
Coins should be dated, preferably with common era dating, but it is acceptable if the date can be converted from another calendar. It is also acceptable if the date can be determined to the exact year from other criteria; however, how it was determined needs to be explained (links are okay). Abul Muzaffar Muhi-ud-Din Mohammad bin Aurangzeb came to power on 31st July 1658 a date which falls into AH1069 which was his regnal year 1, regnal year 41 was therefore AH1109 which commenced on 20th July 1697. But if my eyes don't deceit me the regnal year on the coin is "40" which would make it AH1108 and AH1108 overlaps with 1st January to 19th July 1697, so should be okay as well. |
|
Moderator
United States
190950 Posts |
Works for me. Thank you for the breakdown!  |
|
Pillar of the Community
Russian Federation
5181 Posts |
For what it's worth, here's a coin traditionally attributed to the year 1696 that doesn't actually have a date...   Peter I silver wire kopek (either very late joint rule or very early sole rule), "Russia" variety (KG 1586), circa 1696 AD (different catalogues give slightly different dates, though most say 1696; I've made a case for August 1696 myself, but now that I look at my explanation it doesn't seem very plausible). |
|
Pillar of the Community
Belgium
2895 Posts |
Here a coin wich can cause the same discussion about correct dating. These AH coins will always have some doubts about the excact correct dating. Mod: If it is not accepted, feel free to remove this coin.1696AD AH1108 India, Mughal empire Silver rupee Mint : Burhanpur Regnal year 40 of Abul Muzaffar Muhi-ud-Din Mohammad bin Aurangzeb, (1618-1707) Imperial title (1656-1707): Alamgir ("world-seizer or universe-seizer") 6th Mughal emperor   |
|
Moderator
United States
190950 Posts |
No, we are good! Even if there were some debate, the 1696 coin that mysilveryears posted is satisfactory. This being an international forum, we should be well aware that not everyone uses "common era" dating.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
Belgium
2895 Posts |
Ok JBUCK.
I have several other indian coins.
I will wait till there is a clear date before posting such a coin.
|
|
Moderator
United States
190950 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
136 Posts |
1696 Halfpenny Ireland William III KM #110  I don't know if it is the detail on the harp and portraits, but there is just something about this series that I really like. |
| |
Replies: 3,989 / Views: 390,335 |
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 10/19/2014 1:33 pm
