Turkish Kurush From 1774

The Toughra is the calligraphic signature of an Ottoman sultan (ruler) that was affixed to official documents, carved on his seal, and stamped on coins issued during his reign. The Toughra in it's various forms is typical for most Ottoman coins. The empire included several countries one of which was Turkey, so you will see a similar design on coins of other countries. The mint actually decides the present day country.



To be technically correct the name of the ruler is considered to be part of the Toughra. But in common usage "Toughra" in a numismatic sense refers to the Upper Portion of the design which is more or less generic and is seen in every ruler's full name. I do not read Arabic so the actual starting and ending spots of names is confusing. But based on what I have read, the ruler's name is the part between the design and the mint name.

When I was a kid, the Toughra design looked like a Turkey drumstick to me which was a handy way for me to remember the country when I was fishing through boxes of foreign coins.

Thanks so much - that will come in handy when going through coins (I have a LOT with that design). I always thought that part looked a bit like Alladin's lamp.



I don't understand this part.

Regnal year meaning year of their reign? So on this coin, year 2 would be the 2nd year of Constantinople's reign.. (anyone have a handy calculator of who reigned when?).

The diagram will be most useful, swamperbob... thanks for the help!

xshift , here is more info about how to read the toughra:
http://www.tugra.org/en/okunuslar.asp
for example if you click on toughra #27 on this webpage, you will be able to see all the details pertaining to the coin in this thread.

xshift The fact that the coin was made in Constantinople - fixes the country of location as Turkey - however at various times the size and shape of the Ottoman Empire varied. Places like Egypt were part of the Empire at times and issued coins (for example for Ali Bay in the same time period late 1700s) that used a Toughra design. The word Misr appears above the AH date in the place where the mint mark goes. Otherwise the coins of Turkey and Egypt at that time are rather similar. In the instance cited for Egypt Ali Bey used a Toughra actually belonging to Mustafa III. Ali Bey was a "pretender King" (I guess you would say).

All this is really to say that at times knowing the mint location attributes the country of origin BELOW the level of Empire alone which is sometimes needed to locate the Krause entry.

Yober Thanks for the link on the meaning of the Toughra - it is even more complex than I thought and I have bookmarked it. But the specifics resemble my earlier thoughts in general.

Regarding the edition of Krause I am using - I have the First edition for the 1700's. I do not own the third but have seen the second which I didn't like. I know that some errors have crept into later Krause editions so in the later years I keep copies of several editions. In this case I am now sure the substitution of pictures is such an error. Unless there has been a discovery of an error like the 397 legend on a Year 2 coin - I stand by the comment that your coin can not be the 397.

Regarding Regnal Year - Ottoman coins are dual dated. The first date usually expressed as 3 or 4 numbers is the Year that the ruler came into power. In this case that date is AH 1187. The date 1187 appears on all issues of the ruler and someplace else on the coin is a second number that gives the year of the reign. They year of the reign was often critical because the alloy changed over time and it could make a monetary difference.

The dating system used here is similar to the way some older documents in England and other countries were dated in accordance with the year of the rule of a KING. So all you have to do is translate the AH date to a western date and add (in this case) 2. Of course AH (year of the Hejira) is not co-terminus with the western year - it floats a bit since they use a Lunar system not solar year. That is why you can only say the coin was made between about March 1775 and February 1776.

It would be like calling January 20, 2009 the year of accession of Barack Obama and then numbering his years. January 3rd, 2010 would actually be numbered 2009//1 under such a system. They year would not become 2 until Jan 20th.

I do not have the complete interpretation of the readings on the reverse. But from the section on Egypt I do have a picture which shows where the Regnal year is found on Ottoman issues. This coincides with the earlier location of DCH and with my understanding of the location.

Yober Does your comment mean that you are aware of a 4th variety - involving a Year Two Piastre that is a rarity not listed in Earlier editions of Krause?

It would be like calling January 20, 2009 the year of accession of Barack Obama and then numbering his years. January 3rd, 2010 would actually be numbered 2009//1 under such a system. They year would not become 2 until Jan 20th

Year 1 is the inauguration year, 2009=2009/1, year 2 would begin the following year, 2010=2009/2, 2011=2009/3....

The conversion for this coin would be 1187+2-1=1188=March 14, 1774- March 3, 1775.

I have a 3rd(and 2nd) edition KM, the descriptions are below the pictures...this is definitely KM 396, not 397.

Yober - thank you for the link to the toughra information. I think that will take me a while to digest..

..and I think you should stop conserving now. If this is a rare coin, you could send it to NCS (a division of NGC - they will get it to its absolute best state) and have them conserve and also slab the coin. Do NOT try the STP!



Like I said earlier, if it's a rarity, then send it to NCS. They can conserve the coin the way it should be, without destroying value. They can also verify its rarity and if its the coin your birthday friends thought it was.

swamperbob - thank you also for the information.

Yober - I hear what you are saying HOWEVER - in the 1770s there was NO COUNTRY on earth (that I am aware of) that was using modern coining methods such as hubbed dies. Dies were crafted by hand one at a time and ALL dies were therefore UNIQUE. That is a very large part of studying early numismatics.

I do not doubt for a minute that you were told the coin was rare, but if the rarity is based on position of the elements and thickness of the design only - your experts need to provide a written source for this data. It sounds like a sales pitch unless there is documentation for the specific coin in some technical literature somewhere.

Without such information (not verbal) I would believe it is a typical year two issue.

Yober, maybe the 2 specialists have access to documentation they would be willing to share with you?