A Tale of Two Tomans: help me select my next addition to the "Eclectic Box"

I will almost certainly be adding a Persian gold toman to my "Eclectic Box" collection next. It must be dated 1233 AH (1817 AD), for personal reasons.

I have narrowed down the search to these two candidates from Najaf Coins on VCoins, but if you know where there are any others for sale at a good price (and already-slabbed ones all the better), please let me know.

Both were originally priced at $475 but one is on sale for $350. I have expressed my interest to Najaf and if I understood him correctly, I believe he said he would extend the sale price to either coin I chose. These have been in my watchlist for a year or two, so the deep discount would be nice. It prods me to make the move on one of these, and there is another personal reason I want one before the year is out. Indeed, I've wanted one for a good while, but since Persian coins are outside of my range of experience, I've put off the decision (not to mention that I almost never have $400-500 just lying around unless I've recently sold something ... which I just did).

Since I will be submitting the coin for third-party grading - likely to PCGS - it is important to me that it straight-grades, without any "problem" notations like "cleaned" or "mount removed" or whatever. The actual technical (numerical) grade received does not matter quite as much to me, as long as it is better than VF, which both of these examples certainly seem to be.

I know it's asking a lot for you to judge based on photos alone, and I realize that many of you, like myself, may have limited experience with these, but let me know what you think and help me make up my mind, if you're so inclined.

Let's discuss strike, flan shape, any possible problems, overall eye appeal, and anything helpful you might be able to add.

Coin 1:

(Najaf's # c57, on sale for $350 - regular price $475)

Persia, Qajar, Fathali Shah, 1212-1250 AH, AV Toman, Yazd, 1233, 4.53 grams



Coin 2:

(Najaf's# c63, for sale @ $475 - and *maybe* available for the $350 sale price like the one above)

Persia, Qajar, Fathali Shah, 1212-1250 AH, AV Toman, Yazd, 1233, 4.5 grams

 

Thanks.

Five pounds o' greasy bacon sammiches for you, my friend.

With onions and cheese, if you like.

I do.

 

I like the rounder flan of the second coin, but the strike on the first coin seems to be superior. Look at the date numerals near the bottom of the right-hand pictures, for one thing. The first coin just looks sharper overall - and might grade higher. But the flan is less round, and I wonder about the edge, particularly at the top of the right-hand image - that makes me wonder if there was a mount removed there (which I believe is not an uncommon thing with these)?

 

Thanks, Cointessa. This is a very valid point. That beading, or those dots, or pellets, or whatever the correct term might be, are helpful in demonstrating how much better the strike is on the first coin, just like the clearer date numerals.

And I could live with the first coin having a bit more ovoid flan than the rounder second coin. It's just the apparent rim irregularity that worries me, as mentioned above. That might or might not be a valid concern in selecting a slab-gradeworthy example.

 

I bought one of these AH 1233 Persian tomans sight-unseen in a mail-bid auction from Jim's Coin Service around 1997 or so. It was nice - not perfectly round - and much like the first coin above. Only cost me $150 back then. I had it mounted in a special display holder with a brass tag explaining that it was from the birthyear of Bahá’u’lláh, and gave it to my mother, who is an avid member of the Bahá'í Faith, in which my sisters and I were raised. It has had pride of place in her living room ever since.

But now, since I've gone "Eclectic" in my coin collecting and can actually include another one of these in my own collection, and time the purchase to the bicentennial event celebrated all over the world by Bahá'ís in the coming months, so much the better. I can add a nice coin to my collection and honor my family's religious traditions at the same time.

 

You might be surprised. I think you're just about as qualified to pass judgement on this as I am. Obviously you noticed the thing with the beading, which jumped out at me, too.

My Ancient coin peeps might be able to add something here, since these coins were struck at a time when Iran/Persia was still using the ancient hand-hammered method of striking coins and had not quite transitioned to the production of modern milled coinage. (They would, before the 19th century ran out.)

 

@Parthicus - thank you. Considering your specialty, your opinion on a Persian coin (albeit a much more "modern" one) carries extra weight.

I think I have just about reached this conclusion myself, but for the element of doubt over the possible traces of a removed mount, which concerns me.

I'm still stinging a little from PCGS' recent verdict on another one of my hammered gold pieces. This Belgium/Brabant Carolus d'or got a VF-details "damage" assessment ("Mount Removed"), which I didn't see coming, so perhaps I'm just a little twitchy on that topic at the moment. It is a dilemma, because I really love the coin otherwise, and it is making me rethink my already-weakening policy of "no 'problem' coins within the Eclectic Box".

 

Too bad I can't afford both, so I'd have a built-in "Plan B" if the TPG service gave one a spanking.

 

ROFL

What makes you think there would be enough juice left on my credit card to purchase a package of Kraft Wal-Mart brand mac n' cheese, let alone a second gold toman?

I am, after all, an all-too-typical American in so many ways...