A pseudo-Christian cult that almost overthrew the Qing Dynasty of China

Taiping Rebellion (1850-1864)


Tian Guo Tong Bao (Circulating Treasure of the Heavenly Kingdom). Hartill rarity 1. Extremely Rare.


The Taiping Rebellion was a pseudo-Christian cult founded by a charismatic peasant leader named Hong Xiuquan from Guangdong province during the decaying years of China's last dynasty, the Qing. Widespread corruption, weaknesses demonstrated by China's humiliating defeat by western powers and economic problems led to massive civil anger. Hong Xiuquan capitalized on the mass dissension and weakness of the government To launch a massive revolt starting from Guangxi which led to conquest of massive swathes of to the south including Nanjing which they declared as the Heavenly Capital of their Heavenly Kingdom. The armies of the Taiping rebellion nearly captured Beijing before infighting and a successful counter attack by the armies of the illustrious Han General Zeng Guofan and his protégés Zuo Zongtang and Li Hongzhang gradually pushed the Taiping armies back and dealt a decisive defeat to them thus saving the Qing Dynasty a lifeline for a few more decades.

Although Taiping coins are fairly common, this one was the first batch of official coinage minted by the rebels when they attempted to establish their new government. However very shortly after, the characters were changed to 天國聖寶 Tian Guo Sheng Bao (Sacred Treasure of the Heavenly Kingdom) . Thus mintages were extremely limited and hardly circulated. Thus this coin was awarded as one of China's 50 rarest classic coins, an honor shared by only 50 series of coins throughout China's 5000 years history.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Great write up and fascinating history.

 

Thanks. Glad u liked it

 

The coin is a fake.

Hartill shows both varieties of this coin. The OP's coin is the "closed head" tong (通) 23.1.

If you look at Hartill's 23.1 you will see that the vertical stroke below the "dot" in the tong (通) curves towards the side of the square hole.

However, the vertical stroke below the "dot" on the OP's coin points at the "dot".

These are images of authentic coins of both varieties from the Baidu encyclopedia.

Hartill's 23.1 variety is the coin at the bottom. As you can see, the tong (通) is exactly the same as Hartill's rubbing with the vertical stroke under the "dot" slanting toward the square hole.

The coin at the top is the other variety (23.2) which Hartill terms "square head" tong (通). You will notice that it also has two "dots" instead of one.

From these images of authentic coins you can see what the color of the metal and patina should be. Also, you will notice that these coins were not well cast as evidenced by the rough surface in the field of the coins.

By comparing the OP's coin with the calligraphy, metal color, patina and casting quality of the authentic coins, it is clear that the OP's coin is not authentic.

Gary

 

Gary..

Before you pass judgement please note that your appraisal is incorrect.

Hartill listed 2 varieties. But other Chinese calligraphy books listed a few more. Not to dispute his scholarly work but you should look and expand your research more before and clearly. Moreover Hartill himself has personally seen this coin. And the provenance is from a highly reputable international auction house.

I also have the pleasure of being involved in Chinese numismatic circles and noted pictures shared with me by Chinese collectors of images from the Shanghai museum on the material used. I seen pictures you showed. But the one from the Shanghai museum showed brass.

You also need to know clearer on the background of the Taiping and Qing coins. The Qing Dynasty coins used a brass heavy alloy. Some mints or batches may have higher copper content like the ones from Xinjiang or Sichuan and Fujian. The technology or quality control back in China was not as controlled as that of modern times. Case to note include the vastly varied weights and sides adopted by various mints across China for the Xian Feng coins. Note that the Taiping do not have copper deposits but merely melted existing coins to reissue. Being peasants and at the early stages of their governance, it would be amateurish to assume 1 standard or size fits all.

Lastly, please study a cash coin on their pagination and build. Dimensions as well as seeing them close up.

I have been a professional collector of Chinese coins and seen enough of both to reasonably tell the difference. Moreover, I had the good fortune of knowing and seeking the generous advice of many highly experienced experts before taking the plunge. Thirdly, I made it my policy to know where to get my stuff especially the rarer ones to seek their expert appraisal and assurance before taking the plunge.

You may have some experience with Chinese coins or other coins in your own right. But do note that a wrong appraisal or simple judgement may be highly cautionary and bordering irresponsible as someone less experienced could have lost their interest or a good thing due to "expert" advice.

 

As for quality of coins required/expected to being as poor as the images shown in Baidu, please check here (I'm Chinese unfortunately).

http://money.ycwb.com/2015-03/30/content_20021290.htm

The coins in Baidu also demonstrated evidences of cleaning. Therefore I am doubtful of the patination or rather lack of in question as a reliable yardstick.

 

In my first post, I very carefully explained that your coin differs in several key aspects from coins that are universally recognized to be authentic specimens of the tian guo tong bao. Furthermore, I backed up these points with impeccable references.

We are discussing specifically a coin that was cast in Tianjing (Nanjing) in 1853 for a very, very short period of time as a "trial coin" (试铸). Very few of these coins were cast before the inscription was changed and there is little reason to believe that this small mintage would include another version of the coin like yours. This is the reason there are estimated to be fewer than 20 authentic coins known to exist.

Hartill's book and the Baidu Encyclopedia are in agreement as to what these coins look like.

I don't know of anyone who questions the authenticity of the coins displayed on the Baidu webpage or the rubbings in Hartill's catalog.

However, it is very obvious that your coin is different in calligraphy (通), color/composition of the metal, patina, and casting characteristics as I have already pointed out. This is not my opinion but rather objective observation which anyone is able to see.

One of these differences would be sufficient to question the authenticity of the coin. But your coin has four of these red flags.

So, let's not accuse me of being incorrect in my appraisal.

The burden of proof is with you to show that despite all these differences your coin is also authentic and not a fake. (As you know, fakes of this coin can be found everywhere. A Google or Baidu search will provide many examples.)

Frankly, I was disappointed that your long reply did not provide any objective proof that your coin is indeed authentic.

We are not discussing Qing dynasty coins in general nor are we discussing Taiping Rebellion coins that were cast after the tian guo tong bao. Your discussion on Qing brass coins, minting in various provinces, etc. is not relevant to the tian guo tong bao coin that was minted by rebels in the city of Nanjing in 1853.

I don't doubt that you may have seen pictures of a brass coin from the Shanghai Museum. However, you have not shared the image with us and it is not even clear if the coin was a tian guo tong bao or some other Taiping Rebellion coin.

I'm happy you have access to many experts but please provide details as to why they say this coin is authentic when it differs from the known authentic specimens.

I will provide one additional example of what these coins should look like.

This tian guo tong bao coin was owned by Mr. Ma Dingxiang (马定祥). Mr. Ma is perhaps the most famous Chinese numismatist of the 20th Century. He is also the one who wrote the definitive catalog on coins of the Taiping Rebellion.

As can be seen, this coin is in every respect (calligraphy, metal, patina, casting) the same as the other authentic specimens I have referenced. Contrast this with your coin and the differences are clear.

Mr. Ma's coin was sold by China Guardian which is probably the most respected auction house for rare Chinese coins.

The coin sold at the auction in 2005 for about $22,400 (RMB 143,000).

That would prove to be a real bargain. Today (ten years later), any of these authentic specimens would sell for more than $313,000 (RMB 2,000,000) according to the Baidu Encyclopedia (...为太平天国钱珍品，估价在200万元以上)。

Let me summarize. I have now referenced two rubbings and three images, all of which are consistent in appearance. That is a total of 5 authentic specimens of a maximum total of less than 20. ( Some references mention there are "more than 10 known", "13 known", etc.)

That would be a minimum of 25% of all the known specimens, but your coin does not resemble them.

So, please now provide reliable proof that your coin is genuine.

Seen the coin? You did not say that he authenticated the coin as genuine. Please provide evidence if he did in fact authenticate the coin.

Please provide suitable proof of the provenance and the name of the auction house. These coins appear so rarely that they are always sold at top prices at major auctions of prestigious auction houses. Please provide the link to the sale of your coin.

I'm really hoping that you will take this opportunity to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your coin is genuine. If there really is an authentic version of the coin that is different from those already recognized then we would all like to know.

Gary

 

Gary.

Very well. The auction house is noble numismatics from Australia. The largest there and member of IAPN. They are the equivalent of Heritage Auctions of the US or Spinks UK.

Secondly, please observe this picture. It is from a numismatic book published from Chong Jing and is titled: Qiang Tong 钱通。For your information, they listed 3. I need not show pictures of the other 2 because they match Hartill's book.


Fourthly, I know who MA Ding Xiang is. And you sent a picture of one of his pieces auction in China which I do not doubt fetched an incredible price. I do not doubt his piece so no point quoting his or others' stuff.

Fifth, I am not here to sell you or anyone anything. As for my conversations or discussions with anyone for that matter, I do not need to show you private conversations or interactions between us as I do not think we are leaning towards an interrogation or appraisal session where I need to show evidence to prove myself. That defeats the purpose of info sharing and not subject myself for unnecessary interrogation. But as for those who know me outside of this forum, they know the circles I mix and liaise with.

Sixth, no doubt you were careful with your reply but you merely quoted Hartill's Chinese Cast Coins page 426. I too quoted links to other sources as to the patination and material of other specimens. The MA Dingxiang you showed looks better than then first 2 you shown. But look closet and you can see slight variations in the calligraphy quality.

As for your assumption that 1 size fits all, observe the following 2. These are 2 Qing Dynasty Yong Zheng 雍正 issues. I believe you should also be able to notice the differences I believe in color, patination and to some degree the calligraphy. Can you use just 1 to expect a similar patination and copy of the other? I hope not if you look more into the nature of patination, wear and use.

Finally as per your "red flags":

1) I agree that the 通 is of a different calligraphy from the one you posted. But I showed there are other variants as per another numismatic source which matched.

2) Metal is wrong? Patination and build is wrong? My explanation and example of another specimen shown since my previous post as well as illustration of the minting techniques and materials used during the time should address this. Please note if you opened a link i provided in the previous post to another specimen different from yours which has an obviously different patination, style and "make" than yours. It was sourced from a newspaper article. I further reiterated above so no point recycling over this point regarding 1 size fits all.

In summary: I have provided in my opinion sufficient support not on my claim but rather in addition to the professional appraisal done by the experts at Noble Numismatics pty Ltd, Australia (ABC 21 001 352 969). Ultimately it doesn't matter what you think whether it is fake or otherwise but let's say isaying the remote likelihood that they could have made a mistake due to their lack of experience compared to you, there is no loss as I have a guarantee for life from an assurance backed by a prestigious firm.

 

I believe we should put this to a rest nevertheless. As a specialized collector on this area, I know my facts, sources and enough experiences with acquiring, researching and looking at real and fake pieces in depth to reasonably tell. My principle in collecting is not to jump to conclusions too soon on providing "expert" advice on pieces lest we ourselves make mistakes.

If anyone read my threads clearly and properly, I am not here to ask for AN APPRAISAL. If I wanted to I will ask if I exhausted my options and materials. My intent here is to share and collaborate. But I appreciate it if I or others for that matter do not end up needing to be placed on a pedestal to prove "ourselves" on our collection unless intending to sell or peddle our ware.

 

Loong Siew -- your little charade is over.

You made a critical mistake when you revealed that you bought the coin at a Nobel Numismatics auction in Australia.

I did a search of past auctions and found your coin.

For the benefit of those who may not have followed this thread, the tian guo tong bao coin under discussion is among the 50 rarest Chinese coins. There are less than 20 authentic coins known to exist.

The last authentic specimen sold 10 years ago for $22,400. If an authentic coin were to come to auction now, it is estimated that it would sell for more than $313,000.

Loong Siew has been touting his credentials as an experienced and major Chinese coin collector. He has insisted that his coin is absolutely genuine. He has even implied that David Hartill is familiar with his coin and that the auction house that sold the coin has validated it as genuine with a lifetime guarantee.

Loong Siew insists that Nobel Numismatics is a prestigious auction house comparable to Heritage and Spinks.

Clearly with an extremely rare and authentic Chinese coin coming up for auction at such a major auction house, all the serious and well-to-do Chinese numismatists in the world would be bidding for the coin.

With that as the background, please view Loong Siew's coin at the Nobel Numismatics auction webpage. The auction took place in July of this year in Sydney.

You will first notice that the color of the coin is different from the image Loong Siew used in this thread on CoinTalk. I don't know if this was done to intentionally deceive or not. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and just say that he is a poor photographer.

If you compare the coins you will see that they are absolutely identical. Every little scratch on the rim, every little rim dent, every discolored spot, etc. is identical. So there is no question that it is the same coin.

Now remembering that the authoritative Baidu Encyclopedia in China estimates that an authentic version of this coin would now sell for more than $313,000, do you see what Loong Siew actually paid for this "authentic" and "very rare" coin?

$280 ($400 Australian)

Clearly 100% fake!

Even more unfathomable is that the "prestigious" Nobel Numismatics identified the "coin" correctly noting that it is "very fine and rare".

Did you notice what this auction house estimated this very rare and desirable coin would sell for?

$140 ($200 Australian)

Yes, that means that the auction house knew the coin was a fake, too.

Also, some poor soul must have bid against Loong Siew and the fake coin ended up selling for twice what the auction house estimated it would go for.

Loong Siew has been pretending that he is major Chinese numismatist who moves in the same circles as well-respected experts. He claims he has "rare" Chinese coins and does not hesitate to belittle anyone who dares question him.

I regret that I wasted time doing research in an attempt to help him understand that the coin is an obvious fake.

I especially feel bad that he lied by hinting that David Hartill, one of our finest and most respected Chinese numismatists, had seen the coin and that it was genuine.

I also feel bad for all the other forum members who he deceived on other CoinTalk threads with his fake "posthumous" Qing dynasty sycee and his fake "last emperor of the Ming dynasty" horse coin. I won't even bother addressing why these coins are also fakes.

But most of all I feel sorry for Loong Siew who apparently must get some satisfaction in pretending to be someone he's not and having a "rare" coin collection that he knows consists of fakes.

I will agree with him on one thing, though. It's time to end this thread.

Gary

 

Gary.. I did not claim to be an expert. You are attempting to hold the mantle of "Expertise" on this. Your research is appreciated by others in this forum. But be mindful that your tirade should not be personal.

I think you may be misinformed if you think I made a mistake in revealing my source. It was rather a conscious declaration and nothing to hide in revealing my source as I am fully aware how anyone with simple surfing savviness would not take too long to find out with simple ease.

Be mindful that you are accusing not me but rather Noble numismatics. Between you and them, I believe I know where I would rather place my money on. If I wanted to hide I wouldn't need to tell you the source. Neither am I interested in any titles u claim I am trying to be. I am merely a collector who knows my stuff enough for myself. Only you are trying to show your authority and expertise on this manner.

If you like, I can claim myself to be an ignorant and simple armchair market collector of fakes. You can gladly hold on to your ivory tower as the authority in this field in this forum. I have no interest or any benefit in this at all.

You can categorically bring my other items to your tirade, I personally think it is getting rather personal. Most unbecoming for any mature collector. But the rest can judge for themselves based on the following:

1) I did not at any time peddle any of my items in this forum nor do I have requested any benefits, titles nor ask for appraisal here.

2) regardless of the price, please remember that it is not I who dictate it but rather the auction house. It is like saying the likes of Heritage Auctions, Baldwinsville and Stacks etc selling fakes. I doubt we should even attempt to bring this up.

3) first it was on the characteristics. Then it became a matter of price. Continuously shifting goalposts from the original points (ie characters, patination, material) is not an expected or very appropriate.

4) Losing your cool and started getting personal on character and insinuating deceit and all is unbecoming. If you wanna believe you are right, you can believe what you want not am I interested in convincing you otherwise. But this is quickly becoming a situation where a person is being accused of something out of the blue, forced to defend myself and prove myself otherwise, and then being accused of lying in my defence.

All because I happen to show a coin! Hahaha haha. ..

If it makes u happy, fine.. u win

 

To set the record straight.. the Ming piece was ex-CNG. Classical Numismatic Group. I quote "the Ming Dynasty last Emperor coin was fake".. so now we are including CNG in the list of fake peddlers? Intriguing

 

Please read rule # 2 of this forum..

2 – Personal attacks are not permitted. All Coin Talk members, young, old and in between, will treat all other members with respect and be civil at all times. You are expected to act as responsible individuals, there will be no name calling or flame wars.

Cyber bullying will not be tolerated. And it is up to the sole discretion of the Moderators as to what does, or does not, constitute cyber bullying; as are the consequences for such.