The red coin is dated 1957, the yellow is dated 1955. Many of the Egyptian gold coins struck between 1922 and 1957 are listed in Krause as having been struck in both colors. Yet the TPG never make notation on a holder about it, nor do the auction houses typically include their assessment of what color the coin is in the lot description. I'm going to suggest the red gold is more common of the two, especially in the earlier issues under Fuad.
Love them both but if I had to choose one over the other, I would choose the red! They are both stunning coins! btw, Do you have any Gold Mohur coins?
I would pick the red one too, not so much because of the color but because the 1957 date is slightly better than the 1955. Do not have any Mohurs. Have cataloged plenty of them for auction. Many of them are restrikes and the ones that aren't often have problems. If it's a nice problem-free original striking the price tends to be out of sight expensive, especially if it's a British Empire issue from the 19th century. I like the India Princely States issues the most, often times with super high relief Nastaliq legends, they are impressive in-hand, weigh a lot, and are reasonably priced as Mohurs go. That said, I don't own any.
Yeah, I just started learning about Mohurs, I don't know much about them at all. The really nice ones are really pricey though so that won't be the direction I'll go at all. Yes, the British ones are really pricey that's for sure, I won't be able to buy one of those anytime soon as I have other gold coins on my wish list as well!
Given this - - and the fact that gold color variation is quite common with pretty much all coins, I strongly suspect it was nothing more than happenstance.
I wonder if this had something to do with the alloy they were using. Perhaps silver Was used in 1955 and copper in 1957? I read somewhere that the difference in alloys explains the color variations found on certain Australian Sovereigns (1868 Sydney strikes?). It seems plausible a similar explanation may apply here as well.
Yeah, it's always the alloy that causes color differences. But the thing is, the alloy is not always intentionally what it is, but quite often merely what it happens to be. Ya see, it's pretty expensive to refine gold down to its purest form, and the higher you want that fineness to be, the more it cost. So what is often done is the gold is refined down to the desired fineness and then refinement stops. And whatever impurities happen to remain - remain. In other words it's pure chance.
Another way of thinking about it, is maybe one planchet manufacturer was using jewelry as the source of this gold. This is usually gold and copper. He refined it to correct purity, but almost all non-gold would be copper. Another manufacturer used gold from a mine. Again refined to required purity, but the impurities now will be copper, silver, and other metals. The first one will be redder, and the second will be yellower.
You take the red one I'll take the yellow one nobody seems to want K, thanks. Both are very nice coins reverse pic would be nice also...
Copper will sweat out of gold, so often a copper gold coin will tarnish coppery red. These Egyptian coins look like different alloys rather than tarnish.
I'm of the opinion the alloy was not random. I can't imagine them refining the gold down to 0.875 fine with the rest of the alloy considered inconsequential slop. Just the fact that there are seldom copper spotting on 20th century Egyptian gold coins (unlike, say, Czech gold coins) suggests a fair amount of quality control went into the process of refining and making them. Pics of the reverse for anyone interested..,,..
I don't know if it's true regarding coins, but in jewelry, Egyptian gold is often "Rose Gold" in color which gives it an amazing "true gold" look (at least to me). I have a 18k gold ring with my Egyptian name on it (all in hieroglyphics). My parents handpicked the color back in the '60's. I'm guessing that they liked the Rose Gold color better too.
Well, you basically have two choices. Ya either do it that way, or you refine the gold down to its pure form and then add in specific quantities/percentages of the other metals you wish to add. So, is they did it 2nd way, the way you apparently think - then you are forced to ask yourself another question. Why in the world would they ever choose to make 2 different colors of gold ? And bear in mind the 2 colors would absolutely have to be intentional. Which way do you think would be more probable for a mint that wants to make money on their product, given that the 2nd way is a whole lot more expensive to do ?
I doubt making money was the primary goal, the mintages are too small. Much more of a prestige thing, the royal perogative of striking coins to impress the little people. I will concede that wasn't always the case in the past, the French for instance under Napoleon Bonaparte: They were plundering treasuries all over Europe with such rapidity that his 40 Franc coins exhibit all sorts of different alloys suggesting they didn't assay or refine the gold, simply melted it down and restruck it. But then that was done on a colossal scale, the mintages greater than anything the world had ever seen before.
I agree, and have one of each. They are distinct colors that you see repeatedly and know from "hands on" examination. I have not been as thorough in collecting as POW above, but have loved these coins' designs for many years. Clearly lemon yellow and red/orange gold. I don't think anybody knows why this seeming deliberate bifurcation in colour was made, so we can only guess.
Yes, agree 100%. Some of the coolest designs ever struck, especially the Fuad and Farouk coins, just stunning portraiture exceeded by few other issues in the 20th century. There are the Chinese Republican issues from the turn of the century --Plummed Hat portrait dollar in gold for instance-- that are equally as impressive, but they are so expensive as to be virtually unobtainable by most collectors.
