Actually things have been going pretty well with my attempt to ID the bucket (very small bucket) of common cash I have been ignoring for years but I still have questions. Today's question coins are both ~30mm "large". The first seems pretty standard compared to the illustration of Hartill 16.286 a fraction of a millimeter "Smaller size" Large coin than the H16.284 "Larger size" Large coin listing which I have not seen. My Western prejudice questions why these are separated but it seems there must be more to it than the half millimeter. The problems come with the second coin. It is the "Larger size" and shows the variation of the tong as shown on H16.285 (what do you call the added protrusion on the lower left corner?) but the right character seems nothing like the Hartill illustration. H16.285 is listed as "Claw foot bao" which I would accept as a description of my 'feet' but both sides of mine turn to the left rather than inward as on his illustration. I have failed to find the right character so I assume this is another case where I am making an incorrect assumption even looking in Northern Song or some such major error. Again, in addition to the answer, I ask how I should have figured out that I was looking i the wrong place or how I could have identified that right character.
Doug, You are close on the first, its 16.284 For the second, look to 16.248. Terminology can be weird, spread feet and claw feet are different, but there are two kinds of 'spread'. The exact diameter and weight matter little. One cash are right about 24-25mm, during the Song they are mostly 25. Anything above that is a 'two' denomination. There are arguments for a 'three' denomination but I am skeptical they exist.
Both are North Song 2-Cash “large coins” in running script. The first is Yuan You Tong Bao. The second is Yuan Feng Tong Bao. I don’t have my Hartill with me right now, so that is as much as I can help at the moment
Thanks to you both. I feel bad not finding that H16.248 but the Running script will take some getting accustomed to. This confuses me greatly. The Hartill listing only gives the difference of 16.284 and 16.286 as a matter of size and my coin is the size of 286 which is ~.5mm smaller. If size matters little, what are you seeing on my coin that makes it 16.284? I would have preferred that Hartill mentioned or illustrated some feature that caused him to separate the two. What is the distinction? Mint? Date? 284 being more coarsely cast? This reminds me a bit of some of the late Roman coins that appear with different numbers in two places in RIC because one was issued during the period that there was a co-ruler and the other followed the death of that co-ruler but the coins of the type can not be separated easily into the two groups. His note under 16289 says the value two coins were made in a specified time and place but it is unclear which issue (above or below the note) was involved or how you are to tell the significant points. Perhaps I am missing a point on the catalog. Is this a listing of specific coins in a collection like we see in BMCRE where duplicates were given separate numbers even when there was no rel distinction being made? I do note also like in Roman references an inconsistency in the way things were cataloged. H16.248-50 are listed as having "Variations in characters" with 248 having bao feet like mine (claw or not?) but there are no words like claw, long, short, spread or deficient as used on the next two pages of bao variations. I was foolish to expect the book to be any easier to use than RIC. The impression is the author assumed all users already knew all about the subject so it was not his place to clarify things.
By my measurements, the image for 16.284 is 30mm and the one for 16.286 is 28mm. While I don’t consider it significant enough to warrant a separate listing, I would classify yours as 16.284 since it is closer to 30mm than 28mm. See above. I think it also has claw feet (see right foot in catalogue), so the smaller size is in reference to 16.285. I am not sure of the meaning of the note either. I think it is talking specifically about on of the many mints in operation at the time. Probably. The characters for 16.248 are sloppy, on 16.249 the spines of “Feng” (right character) are tall, on 16.250, the spines are short. Minor variations that I would otherwise not pay any attention to.
Thank you very much. It is hard to see why some little things get separate numbers when most things do not. I never thought about measuring the drawings but was just laying the coins on the images and must not have been looking straight down to see. In Roman, mints seems to mean everything even when they are only style separated. I find it interesting that the things that seem to rate notice on Chinese are minutia like short feet with no mention why we should care. It is a very different hobby.
Most collectors of Chinese coins don’t care. I don’t. Hartill apparently did. Most of us probably don’t care about very minor variation within a RIC number on Septimius Severus coin like you might.
I've been messing with the first coin and mapping the characters out. Is not easy since these characters also use scripts. It's exactly the same name. 元宥通報 Yuan You Tong Bao
I would appreciate it you would reread what I said. I said it's the "same exact name". The characters are slightly different because I'm not using scripts like the coin is.
I'm not sure what happened but the characters inside your quote definitely look different. So, I took a screenshot.
According to the Hartfil screenshots, it says the characters are read starting at 12 O'lock and read counter clockwise. So, I believe I have them correct. Most Chinese coins are read in the standard way, top, bottom, etc.
Doug, I feel your pain. I will be sending in one of my puzzle pieces later as I haven't photoed it yet. It's a simple coin to identify except for one thing; the mint mark is the mystery. I have Sjhoth as well as Hartill, and have scoured the inet for info. NO GO. I was at the ANA in August and made my way around the floor to the folks who deal in Chinese coinage. The only folks I didn't get to was Steve Albums table. Best guess so far is possibly a private token of some sort as it does have circulation wear. I'll send the photo in later. Love those damn puzzle pieces. Cheers....
Your second coin is in the Bei Song Tung Qian (Northern Sung Copper Coins), #1740. Notation says 阔 缘 kuo yuan (broad rim), rarity 10 (commonest). Hartill is really stingy for varieties in the Northern Sung section.
