A most intriguing and interesting coin. Zhao Na Xin Bao 招納信寶。Reverse Shi Shang 使上。Southern Song Dynasty. AD1131. Zeno #40314 This extremely rare coin was issued by the General Liu Guangshi of the Southern Song Dynasty when an army under the Jin Dynasty General Wanyan Chang was on an expedition to attack the Southern Song. During the campaign, he devised a clever plot to issue these coins as a secret token to captured Jin as well as Han Chinese soldiers wishing to surrender to the Song within the Jin Dynasty army. Anyone holding these tokens will be granted free passage and welcomed into the Song army. This strategy worked as so many defected to the Song army that the Jin army was forced to retreat. It was recorded that silver and gold variants exists although their locations were lost. This was a period of intense hostility between the Jurchen Jin Dynasty who conquered much of Northern China including the old capital of Kaifeng from the Northern Song. Naturally many conscripted soldiers were of ethnic Han origin and longed to return to the Han Song Dynasty. This clever plot was the only recorded case in history where it was used. Another theory put forth was that these coins were used as identification tokens for spies working for the Song Dynasty under covert espionage within the Jin ranks. However, this theory was unproven and hence the former was the more widely accepted theory as written records were kept of their use. Please kindly share your knowledge and information of such usage of secret and covert use of coins amongst different cultures in history
Thank you. The coin itself does not have much in terms of looks and build. But the history behind it was one of a kind
I love the story, and I would love to get one myself, but I do not think this coin is genuine. The style is not consistent with known examples. I won’t discount the possibility of a contemporary counterfeit used for a soldier to try to get into the Song army, which would account for the crudeness of your example. That would make it more interesting in my book. You would still have to prove that it is ancient, though... A known genuine coin:
you may have your opinion on this. However I do not need to prove anything.. Firstly this was unearthed in the border of China on Jin land, it is not an eBay specimen. Secondly there are widely differing dimensions of this coin from the silvers, gold and even bronzes. Thirdly you have demonstrated but only one or 2 specimens to determine the coin's authenticity when there are not enough of these coins to start with. I suggest to look for the gold and silver specimens for comparison on the differences in styles. Also, the patination is correct as I have examined and tested it personally myself. Fifth, this specimen has been verified on Zeno since the early 2000s observed by experts like Vladimir Belyaev and the likes. I have provided the Zeno reference to the same coin which I obtained. Sixth, these tokens are also divided between the standard and the red contingents, the latter being non-Han soldiers who were also interested to defect. Lastly there were no written records kept on the standard dimensions of these coins. The only specimen maintained was Ma Dingxiang's specimen as you shown and a couple of one or 2 that came out after. Calligraphy style are largely similar although the size is smaller for this specimen. Please note that unlike government controlled circulating currencies, these coins are made on demand without government machinery or controlled standards. You are free to your opinion and I respect that. But I suggest further study and analysis before conclusion.
Provenances can be made up. Ebay is not the only source of fakes. I’m talking about the style, not the dimensions. Casting is a very imprecise method of manufacturing. Weights are going to vary. Think about this logically. If you were the head of the army and were making coins to grant defecting enemies free passage into your own army, you would want the style of the coin to be consistent to avoid forgeries from enemy spies. The style of accepted genuine pieces are markedly different and finer than your specimen. Plus the rims of your coin have the style from 1000 years prior (deep and rounded), not the flat rims consistent with the period. I read the thread. Their conclusion was based on the supposed find spot. Again, dimensions are not important. The style is. As I have said, it could be a contemporary counterfeit made by an enemy spy.
What a great story. I cannot contribute anything to this topic. What puzzles me though regarding the question of authenticity is this: The known genuine coin is so crude and thus easy to fake that I cannot understand why any modern forger would make such blatant mistakes such as casting a large rim which is consistent with the "style of 1000 years prior". I guess what I'm saying is that I would expect modern forgeries to be virtually indistinguishable from genuine specimens, while in this case stylistic variation could in fact be used as argument to support the coin's authenticy. Again, I don't know anything about these coins and I'm not taking any view on its authenticity.
Thanks. Private mintages do not have a strict standards of control. The argument that a style being 1000 years earlier is an inaccurate assumption. Even coinage 1000 years earlier do not conform to a stylistic standard (e.g. rims, sizes, borders etc) especially for Chinese coinage. Just take for example the notorious variants of Wuzhus for hundreds of years.. Moreover, these tokens were noted only in name and no written records of their dimensions or sizes were known. The most appropriate means of authenticity would be provenance and condition. Whilst a few genuine specimens were identified, the rarity of these coins do not provide sufficient samples as a reliable baseline. case to note, even silver and gold variants are known to exists but are so rare that no one can safely say that they all look the same. With my experience on Chinese cash coins, it is a known fact that no 2 cast coins are exactly the same. They are closely similar but cannot be exactly alike given the manual and casting process involved. I have also seen enough specimens on paper/rubbed images to see stylistic differences across them. This coin is notably smaller than other specimens noted online but the overall calligraphy and certain traits of associated with these coins (e.g the elongated 寶， the unjustified vertical strokes of the 言 to name a few) are evident. Also, the smaller than usual flan forced some characters to squeeze in. More importantly I place my trust on the provenance and condition of the coin. I have personally examined the metal and patination. I have also published and shared the coin to various Chinese numismatic groups for evaluation both western as well as Taiwan, Hong Kong. It is also published in Zeno for years administered by the respectable Mr. Belsyaev.
LOL. Just LOL. You are COMPLETELY ignoring the many general patterns the coins had as they evolved. The rims I mentioned were generally on every single coin between 117 BC and ~400 AD, except for the coins cast to look clipped. The style started to shift with the Western Wei “Wu Zhus” and “Chang Ping Wu Zhus” to flat rims with flat characters of the same relief. The character strokes before then were sharp or rounded, not flat. When the economy was relatively stable and when people were not killing each other all the time, the fabric was generally consistent. Yes, there were variants with extra marks or slight variations in calligraphy, but all you are doing in conflating the facts to confuse the readers here. The major style variants did not occur until after 400 AD. Then when the Kai Yuan came about in 618 AD, look how EXTREMELY CONSISTENT the style for cash coins was for the next 1300 years. Again, NOT IMPORTANT!!! Yes, it does. If all of the accepted examples have a consistent style and yours is different, then that should say something. Basically, what I am trying to say is that minute variations do not matter. You are conflating that fact that tiny variations exist to make it seem that the myriad of differences on your coin are within the margin of error. - The rims are completely incongruent with the period - The character strokes are nowhere near the same relief of the rims - The font of the characters is very different and downright crude This is more than slight variations from mould to mould. These are all basic aspects of style/fabric that should be consistent among genuine pieces. Since yours is different in three very significant ways, it CANNOT be an authentic original. It could be an ancient counterfeit, as I have said twice before, but it is certainly not one of the original tokens.
It is very worn. However, the font of the characters is very refined compared to the crude font on the suspect coin. Note the rounded rims and character strokes of these: Ca 100 BC: Ca. 10 AD: Ca 230 AD: Ca 580 AD: Note the flat rims of these Ca 600 AD: Ca 1100 AD Ca 1230 AD: It could be an ancient forgery. However, most modern forgeries can still be distinguished stylistically (sharpness of character strokes, rims, bumpiness of fields, etc.) due to the counterfeiting techniques available. Absolutely not. It is dangerous to even think that way.
As an example, this is a modern forgery of a Wang Mang value-700 spade. Compare it with the value-400 spade below. The stokes are very thick and fuzzy, while the genuine coin’s strokes are very sharp. The whole surface of the fake coin is grainy (as cast), which is not the case on the genuine coin. As a result, the suspect coin CANNOT be a genuine mint product. However, since the metal is modern and the patina is obviously fake, it isn’t a contemporary forgery either. This shows how your assumptions about modern forgeries being exact is extremely dangerous, especially since this is a $1000-2000 coin if genuine.
I will not waste time arguing too much about the subject especially when there is not enough authoritative scholastic research being made or conducted on these coins. It will only boil down to matter of personal opinions based on individual's concepts and ideas. I will end with these few closing notes however 1) The argument that styles have changed and evolved that they will never repeat again is a FALSE assumption. There is no written records that dictate a stylistic standard that is adhered to through the ages and hence any specimens that do not conform to the period is considered Fake. Moreover private issues care even less for stylistic adherence. Please research more into tokens and #exonumia. Case to note, please refer to following specimen from the Song Dynasty. The above specimen is a Song Dynasty issue which adopted a style of "biscuit" cash that was reminiscent of Han Dynasty coins albeit in extreme proportions. The thick and wide rims are fully evident here. 2) About "style" the make and dimensions of this specimen warped the 咸平元寶 into something different from what expectations are. I need not emphasize the obvious "style" differences in the characters above and specimen #1. Even the proportions of the rim between the first and second specimens are different with the former showing a disproportionately large rim. FYI, large rims were even casted during the late Qing. Please refer Hartill 22.1371 for example. 3) Finally, variations exists for this coin as well. Despite it's rarity, at least 4 varying calligraphic styles are already noted. Let us end the argument of authenticity here.
And none of them are even REMOTELY close to your coin. Notice how consistent the fabric and font are among all four specimens. Thank you for posting the most condemning evidence against your coin.
And I never made that assumption. My statement was based on the fact that the fabric of the known specimens conforms to that of contemporary coins. Yours is markedly different and is more reminiscent of the norm from a 1000 years prior. That, to me, is significant. If ALL of the known specimens had the same fabric as yours, then I would be treating this as an exception to the contemporary norms. However, this is the opposite of the case here. There doesn’t need to be. The coins speak for themselves. And your defense are a couple privately-made coins/tokens which broke the norm. However, they were all consistent in their fabric. The point is that This COMPLETELY IGNORES the fact that the accepted specimens of the type in question are consistent in style/fabric with each other and contemporary issues. This is not a fringe opinion; it is a basic fact. Everyone here can tell that there are huge and glaring differences between your coin and the accepted specimens. They are that obvious.
And don’t get me wrong. If you believe the findspot provenance to be 100% ironclad and the metal/patina to be ancient (I trust your judgement), then I would conclude this was a contemporary forgery, not modern like you apparently think I am saying. It would be ancient, but not official, and I think that would make it more interesting than an official piece.
