Posted 10/25/2007 05:37 am
Well, it's definitely Islamic, but you probably figured that part out already. It's not modern, either - 1800's at the latest. The lack of an obvious toughra (an ornate kind of royal signature, very distinctive) means it's not likely to be Ottoman. I can see two numerals: "26", but I'm not sure if that's a regnal date or the last half of the accession date; there might be a "9" next to it (making it accession date AH 926 (1520 AD), but it's too worn to be certain. I also think I can make out the Arabic word "Misr" (Egypt) at about the 3 o'clock position in the top pic, so that seems a fair place to start.
Going to zeno.ru, one of the best reference websites around for old Islamic and Asian coins, I find that the Ottoman sultan Suleyman the Magnificent came to power in Islamic Year 926 (1520 AD), and his predecessor had only just conquered Egypt; sounds like a good bet. Indeed, This gold coin looks very similar to your piece.
The next question is, of course, "Is it real?". I'm afraid I'm not qualified to answer that, but I'd be suspicious.
Going to zeno.ru, one of the best reference websites around for old Islamic and Asian coins, I find that the Ottoman sultan Suleyman the Magnificent came to power in Islamic Year 926 (1520 AD), and his predecessor had only just conquered Egypt; sounds like a good bet. Indeed, This gold coin looks very similar to your piece.
The next question is, of course, "Is it real?". I'm afraid I'm not qualified to answer that, but I'd be suspicious.
Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
I don't think so, Homer1. I suspect the "1949" you're seeing is merely an optical illusion, caused by a fuzzy pic and oblique angle. If you look at the coin in the link I posted above, you can see the "1949" for what it really is - the initial letters of Suleyman's name and titles.
