There weren't a whole lot of dealers with world coins this year, but I did find a few nice additions to the collection. Meiji 4 (1868) was only the second year of modern Japanese coinage, and this .800 silver 5 sen is the earlier (and scarcer) of two varieties minted that year. The differences are in the number of "rays" and "beads" on the reverse, which is the side without legends. The fascinating part about this particular coin is the apparent die break affecting the character for "four" in the date. It should be a slightly trapezoidal shape with loops in the upper corners, and no line extending below the bottom of the "box".
Actually my friend, Meiji Gan ("First") was 1868 on the western calendar. but during the first years of Emperor Mutsuhito's reign, until completion of Japan's first modern minting facility in Osaka, Tokugawa-type coins continued to be produced for circulation. Although the earliest modern coins of Japan are dated Meiji 3 (1870), it wasn't until issuance of the Shinka Jorel ("New Coinage Act") the following year, that the Tokugawa coins, and the weight-based denominations they were expressed in, were abolished in favor of newly created denominations. This English translation of the first paragraph is from the Report on the Adoption of the Gold Standard by Masayoshi, as quoted in Modern Japanese Coinage, 2d Ed., by Cummings:
is that the same break that runs through the coin at 11 o'clock, or is that a second crack? breatiful coin, by the way.
Good eye Rick. I hadn't noticed that one. It doesn't line up with the one I mentioned, which is at 3 o'clock, so I would say they are separate cracks in a die that probably didn't last too much longer.
Hello, Here is an AU example of the 66 Rays, 79 Beads. It has dark toning and has never been cleaned, I graded it using a 25X loop.
A nice coin, but I have to respectfully disagree on the grade. The detail in the "sen" character, and the center of the reverse just don't seem that good to my eye. It does clearly show what the "hon" and "yon" characters look like without die breaks. I must also admit that I not only won't pay a premium for tarnish, but often downgrade coins that have a lot. PS - A much, much better job of photography than mine.
Well every one is allowed their opinion. As you know it is very hard to grade coins from pictures especially tiny coins like these. I think the poor scan and dark toning (tarnish) makes it even harder. I am not sure if you do or do not have high power magnification, but I very easily counted my dots using a needle that looked like a pencil under the loop. I was wrong I was actual using my 30X not 25X, anyways viewing this coin showed just the slightest friction on the high spots with no signs of wear, dipped it would explode with luster and look UNC. I am from the school of thought that dirty and ugly but original is worth more than pretty and shinny but cleaned (polished, whizzed, Acid dipped, washed, etc.) The latest catalog I own is 1995, what is the current value of this coin? Thank you, Jeff
The 2001 19th Century Krause lists it at $50 F, $125 VF, $250 XF, and $400 Unc., which is a little on the low side IMHO. I don't have the current edition. In the 2005 JNDA catalog it's listed at ¥13,000-80,000 (~$122-750).
