Anybody Know Anything About The Akita 100 Mon From Japan?

manymore Thank you for the comments and the small book. The tokens/charms are interesting and I know I have seen some of those before - just had no clue about what they were. The eight trigrams certainly is a match and it is nice to know something of the history of that feature.

I too have NO expertise on Japanese coins I use Krause and match the pictures. When I first saw the thing I thought it could be the hand guard from a Japanese sword. But the KM #6.1 under Akita in Krause 19th century matches this coin in all respects so perhaps the 100 Mon lacked references to denomination. This is the Short tailed Phoenix variety. It is listed in the City State section after the regular issues. Values run from $65 in VG to $225 in EF so it would qualify as a target for a forger.

manymore If you have Krause 19th century edition would you look at the Akita 6.1 to see if you can spot any differences.

I have had one expert opinion that the coin is a modern counterfeit but I can't be sure. It seemed he was too quick to say counterfeit but still was willing to buy it. Since I collect counterfeits that makes me interested in buying the coin. The more I study it - the more the coin is "saying" OLD. It is very difficult to fake a patina or verdigris as well as I see here and the coin has been in storage for many years. None of the copper coins I have stored for 50 years has a patina this deep.

The catalog value (about $100 - 150) is enough to make me want total assurance before labeling it as a counterfeit. A cast coin is so much easier to forge than a struck coin that it could be a 150 year old contemporary forgery made for circulation. That effects the value to me as well.

For those who do not own the Krause book here is the entry.





I noticed that the entry reads COPPER. I earlier guessed bronze but I can not be sure. There are too many casting voids to get an SG that could differentiate.

The color of the obverse is a very good match on my PC.

I'm afraid I agree with the person who thought it was a copy.

For two reasons.

1. there are definite signs of crude casting - pits, etc. That could just be erosion (though unlikely) but coupled with...

2. The general crudity of the piece, I think that it must be a copy. At this time period, coins and charms of this size were very well made and something where the rim wobbles all over the place and where the design is so blocky and rough whould just never have made it out of the place of production.