The coin is a bit damaged, the text reads S:GEORGIUS EOVITATRON I believe it has something to do with st george and the dragon. The strange thing about this coin is that the back of the coin is the inverse of the front, meaning that everything on the front is exactly the same as the reverse except the markings are pressed in to the coin instead of protruding. I've found coins of similar style online but none that have an inversed identical front and back. These coins were left to me by my grandfather and I have not be able to determine what they are.
I appears that your first coin is what is termed a 'brockage'. This occurs when a coin sticks in the upper die and is used to strike the next coin. They are common in ancient coins but I do not collect modern and can not comment on how this applies to them. If you have found an exact match of the 'normal' side, perhaps you can ID the coin.
The second coin with "1825" is a silver coin of British India. Bombay, Surat (a town near Bombay), Shah Alam II, Yr 46. Depending on it's weight and size, it could be a rupee, half rupee, or 1/4 rupee.
The first coin could be a copy of the Hungary-Kremnitz Half-Ducat pictured in: http://www.beastcoins.com/World/Hungary/Hungary.htm
That certainly does look pretty close, I think it would be plausible that it was a "brockage" of that coin. Are brockage coins more or less valuable then their properly minted counterparts?
The original coin is gold but the above coin looks like an ordinary metal token. Interesting item, but I don't know how many people collect token errors.
looks like this thread contains some similar info http://www.cointalk.com/t5675/. Then person there though describes the coin as having either all V's or all U's. This coin definitely says S:GEORGIUS EOVITATRON just like one willieboyd2 found. It might be the real deal
It def does not have the shininess one would expect from a gold coin but it maybe quite dirty. Its difficult to tell.
I'll be the first to adnmit that I know nothing about ancient coins. But how in the world do you have a brockage with a hammered coin ? I mean the steps are this - the minter places a planchet on the anvil die, then he places the hammer die on top of the planchet, then he strikes the hammer die. Then he removes the struck coin by hand and tosses it into the pile of completed coins. Then he starts over. So it's not like what happens with a machine. And it's not like the minter is going to forget to remove the struck coin either. So I don't see any way for a brockage to occur with a hammered coin. I think the OP's coin is just a modern token or medal of some kind.
The problem as I see it is you took several times as long to describe the process as it took the mint team to do them. First, "the minter" is a concept from the middle ages. Ancient coins are thought to be the product of a team working extremely quickly. One man (the big guy) does nothing but swing the hammer. We are probably talking about a large hammer since those paper thin slivers of silver did not come along for hundreds of years after the process began. One man placed the prepared blank in place on the lower die. Since most issues were struck on heated flans, this was a tong job. The third guy held the top die in place (hopefully also with tongs) while the hammer man did his thing. There is evidence suggesting that some teams actually had two different reverse dies alternating in use over the same anvil die. This allows for the fact that the smaller top die would heat up and benefit from the added seconds of cooling. We do not know how the coins were removed from the dies but I suspect that most would just fall out and could be collected from the ground after cooling. Working quickly and assuming the thing fell out might allow one in several thousand to stick. Ancient brockages are not rare but hardly common either. They are most common in the Roman Republican denarii and downright rare among bronze coins. They are also seen in the medieval Indian coins of the Western satraps as expected from lightweight coins made by the millions.
I'll attach some of my own. One thing to note - reverse brockages are much rarer, as the minter is more likely to notice a coin sitting on the anvil than one stuck in the hammer die. Tiberius AE semis – 18mm Lugdunum, 12-14 AD TI CAESAR AVGVST F IMPERAT VII laureate head r. Incuse of obverse, intended Altar of Lugdunum type RIC 246 [Augustus] Roman Republic Mn. Cordius Rufus, 46 BC AR denarius Corinthian helmet with crest upon which owl stands RVFVS Incuse of obverse Crawford 463/2; CRI 64; Sydenham 978; Cordia 4 Roman Republic Anonymous, 115-114 BC AR denarius Helmeted head of Roma right; X (mark of value) to left ROMA Incuse of obverse Crawford 287/1; Sydenham 530; RSC 176
While I very much agree with this, we need to understand that there were a few times when the portrait was on the top die and a few cases when dies were hinged making a pair of equals rather than being a distinct top and bottom. I have no example of the first but I believe the Gallic Empire used hinged dies explaining my reverse brockages. There is always a chance that such sloppy workmanship might indicate an unofficial mint. I believe this Comes type belonged to Tetricus I.
OK - now explain to me how it happens with a medieval coin - which the OP's coin would be if it were genuine. Those I know more than little about. And the process is as I described. And never, ever, have I seen one, never even heard of one - a brockage that is. But medalions, tokens, of that design - yeah I've seen those.
The OP coin would seem to me to be unofficial if for no better reason that it is not gold. That type should be gold (correct?). Soft gold would make the worst possible host for a brockage in theory (I've never seen one). The sharpness of this item looks like brass rather than gold. The easiest way to get an 'error' in a modern issue is for the mint employee to make it on purpose. I suspect if you want a modern US brockage, there is someone in China willing to make it for you. BTW there is even a period in the history of Greek coins when designs were made to have one side incuse. These were not brockages but the reverse die was engraved in relief. Usually the reverse was a little different or missing some detail so it was obvious that the two were not accidentally caused. On a few, the reverse type was incuse but completely different than the obverse. It was an experiment that did not catch on. The fact that the first are dated to the place and time of Pythagoras leads many to believe that he was responsible but I am not aware of any evidence beyond the circumstantial. The practice does make a coin that are stronger and thinner for the diameter. Some even would stack but that was not something expected of coins until much later.
Yes it should be if it were genuine. It is also much too large to be genuine - or that is the smallest 2x2 I've ever seen. A half ducat, which is what a genuine coin like this would be is very small and only weighs 1.7gm. A full ducat is only 21mm. A half is but 15mm if memory serves.
You can get it weighed at a jewelry store. They can probably also tell you that it is not gold just by looking at it.
