Turkey - Ottoman - Egypt ? [opgelost]

10 berichten

» Snelle toegang tot het laatste bericht

Hello,

I need you help to ID these 2 coins.
I think that they come from Ottoman Empire but i'm not sure.
Thank you very in advance for your help;)

have a nice day

1) Copper, 30mm, 11.50gr


2)silver, 20mm, 1.2gr
2nd:
20 para (probably)
like this: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces42617.html
0,170 silver
Constantinople mint (Turkey)

ascension year AH1223
regnal year looks like 20? (top of right picture)
Date = ascension year + regnal year
AH to AD:
https://en.numista.com/numisdoc/calendar-islamic-30.html
Non est totum quod splendet ut aurum
Rijkdom bestaat niet uit het hebben van veel bezittingen, maar in het hebben van weinig behoeften
1st
half anna?
scroll down here: http://www.chiefacoins.com/Database/Countries/Hyderabad.htm
Mir Mahbub Ali Khan II (Asaf Jah VI) coinage: AH 1268 - AH 1329 (1869-1911).
AH1328
left top in the thugra could be this: number 92
Note: Numeral 92 is observed on almost all coins of Hyderabad. It is not the Reginal year of the state or any king or something related to the rank of Nizam or mint identification. It is the Numerical Value of the name "Muhammad". In Islam Prophet Muhammad is praised and honored, therefore Muslims do not want his name to touched with unclean hands or thrown on the floor. For this reason they represent it with the numerical sum. Muhammad: Mim + Ha + Mim + Dal = 40 + 8 + 40 + 4 = 92.
(With thanks to Haseeb: http://www.chiefacoins.com/Database/Countries/Hyderabad.htm)
Non est totum quod splendet ut aurum
Rijkdom bestaat niet uit het hebben van veel bezittingen, maar in het hebben van weinig behoeften
Citeer: "PetrusAscanus"​2nd:
​20 para (probably)
​like this: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces42617.html
​0,170 silver
​Constantinople mint (Turkey)

​ascension year AH1223
​regnal year looks like 20? (top of right picture)
​Date = ascension year + regnal year
​AH to AD:
https://en.numista.com/numisdoc/calendar-islamic-30.html
​Hello Petrus,
thank you very much for your answer!
you are right that's an ottoman 20 para year 1223 and for the regnal year it's 20. (could be also 30)
it could be the KM# 588 but for this coin the regnal year it's between 21 and 25.
i checked the world coin but i don't see the coin type for this regnal year
Citeer: "PetrusAscanus"​1st
​half anna?
​scroll down here: http://www.chiefacoins.com/Database/Countries/Hyderabad.htm
​Mir Mahbub Ali Khan II (Asaf Jah VI) coinage: AH 1268 - AH 1329 (1869-1911).
​AH1328
​left top in the thugra could be this: number 92
Note: Numeral 92 is observed on almost all coins of Hyderabad. It is not the Reginal year of the state or any king or something related to the rank of Nizam or mint identification. It is the Numerical Value of the name "Muhammad". In Islam Prophet Muhammad is praised and honored, therefore Muslims do not want his name to touched with unclean hands or thrown on the floor. For this reason they represent it with the numerical sum. Muhammad: Mim + Ha + Mim + Dal = 40 + 8 + 40 + 4 = 92.
​(With thanks to Haseeb: http://www.chiefacoins.com/Database/Countries/Hyderabad.htm)
​once again thank you pertrus!
you are right, this is an indian coin of ½ Anna from Hyderabad.
it could be Y# 36. https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces16631.html
but in this case the mint date doesn't work
for the second i think that it is Y# 47 1/2 ANNA AH1348//20 (1930)
The second coin is: Km# 596 20 para 1223 regnal year 30 :



That 20 para coin is also on Numista (https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces20108.html) but with wrong dates. In stead of the accession date AH1223 the real dates (accession date + regnal year) are on the Numista coinpage. That is not correct because that real date is NOT on the coin. That causes confusion because members are searching for AH1223 with regnal year 30 and can't find it in our catalog.

For the similar 10 para coin (#KM 595) the dates on Numista are correct: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces41366.html
Citeer: "el lobo"​for the second i think that it is Y# 47 1/2 ANNA AH1348//20 (1930)

​That's correct (but of course you mean for the first in stead of for the second):

Thanks Essor!
Non est totum quod splendet ut aurum
Rijkdom bestaat niet uit het hebben van veel bezittingen, maar in het hebben van weinig behoeften
Thank you very much both for your information and precious help!

Essor you are right for the two coins ;)

» Forumbeleid

Gebruikte tijdzone is UCT+2:00.
Huidige tijd is 00:51.