Hi guys need some unbiased help to determine if these Jayasimha coins are a diematch.. As far as I know a die match has never been found in this series so it would be great news if they are. These coins are rare enough individually but as a match. I've gone cross eyed and over-biased so need someone to put me straight one way or the other..Thanks Any thoughts from the pros? Paul
Thanks for the reply RC....2 more collectors have said the same..so it looks like I have an obverse die match... Ed Nible asked ....'Have you been able to find any die matches in this series? ' It seems I can say yes... Thanks again Paul
WOW, I 'taint an expert, but to my untrained eyes, I agree with @Roman Collector : you look to have a die-match for the Obv! I went to look him up, cuz I am Historically brain-dead on the dude. I got a really cool movie... Yeah, I know he is an Indian Ruler... Sad, that Google has to spend several pages on movies and modern "schtuff", and make it difficult to find important Historical people. Wiki gave me a little better option.
My vote is no, look at the central design elements on the obverse, one of the U shaped features is made of dots, the other is not.
If you magnify the image you'll see that one also has dots, but it is not as well defined probably due to being struck later as the die was getting more worn. It happens. The die is not going to strike everything as sharply for coin #700 or #800 as it would for coin #15 or #20.
I have no WiFi right now and am unable to get the images into my laptop for a careful look in PSE. At first I thought the obverse was a match but now I’m not sure. As @beef1020 said, the dotted arc is different. However, I agree with Sallent that die state and strike can account for that. Take a look at the semicircular line just above the dotted arc though. On one coin it is almost a perfect radius and the other is slightly V shaped and I don’t think it can be explained by differences in coin or camera tilt. Later in the week if no one else has done so I’ll try some Photoshop superimpositions. Many other elements and relationships look good for a match though. Perhaps the later-state die had some touch-ups?
I understand and agree with the point about die states, I collected large cents by die state prior to joining the dark side. The coin in the top appears to be the latter die state. Look at the strike from 11:00 to 1:00 on the top coin, it is either a latter die state then the one below or not a match. But if the top coin is latter then the semi dots don't make sense. Additionally, the third die element below the dotted U is different on both coins, again either because the top is coin a latter die state or because it's a different coin, which leads to the same conclusion.
As these were all hand made, one last possibility no one has considered is same celator but different dies. In other words, the reason the coins look so similar even though they are not a die match is that the same celator crafted both dies. We see that a lot in Roman and Greek coins, where coins may not be a die match but are so close in style that we know it had to be the same person who did both. I don't know about Indian coins, but with Romans especially, because of the unique touches of each celator, by studying different dies sometimes you can trace the development in skills of one particular celator for a 15 or 20 year period (few ever exceeded that amount of time)....which is why we know that the average Roman celator worked at the mint no more than 20 years, and most likely around 15 years total.
Related, some of you might be interested in reading this FAC thread regarding the word “celator”. To quote Inigo Montoya, I do not think it means what you think it means http://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=32177.0 In particular, see post #2 by slokind and post #3 by Curtis Clay.
Language is dynamic. I've always heard celator used in the context of die engravers, and if a majority comes to view it as such, then eventually celator will mean die cutter in the context of ancient coins. Incidentally, I got a new "old" record last week, and I was listening to a song called "Why do fools fall in love" by a talented young singer named Frankie Lymon ...a song recorded well before I was born. In one portion Frankie sings "Why do birds sing so gay?". To my generation that word may sound confusing in that context, but that is because the meaning of the word changed drastically in the 30 years from the time he sang that song to the time I was born. As I said, language is not a static thing. Like human culture itself, we are always reinventing new ways to express ourselves. I think that "The Celator" magazine had a lot to do with repurposing the word "celator" from fancy metal worker to meaning something akin to die cutter or die engraver.
Yes indeed, new words are being added often. In this case the only users of the new meaning of “celator” are collectors of ancient coins, a mistake created by The Celator magazine and propagated by ancient coin collectors until the use became (mostly) unquestionably accepted. It sure happened quickly! I guess the internet has enabled the more rapid dissemination and acceptance of new words. With a little effort we could probably change it again. Anyone up for the challenge? Maybe instead of celator we could start calling die engravers aesmen or scritchetyscratchers.
I'm not hot on "celator" and honestly am not sure what's wrong with "die engraver"... I don't find it too unwieldy and think it's appropriately descriptive. On a historical note, the introduction of RIC Vol. 1 mentions inscriptional evidence from 2nd century Rome that tells us die engravers were called signatores. Of course, this wouldn't have been the term used in 4th century BC Greece, 12th century India, and maybe not even 3rd century Rome. In any case, here's the paragraph from page 15 of RIC Vol. 1: "(iv) the signatores (engravers), suppostores (those who inserted the blanks between the dies), and malleatores (hammer men), with whom should be associated the conductores flaturae (the metal-melters, the metal-refiners, and possibly those who cast the flans)." Ok, fine, let's just go with "scritchetyscratchers", but what about all those other guys mentioned in the passage above?
I really like that we should call the Die Cutters for whom they are: Die Cutters. I always thought Celator was an odd name, and was too lazy to go search and learn more about it. I assumed, as many of us did, that it was "official". Frankly, I am very dissapointed that a key information provider (the Magazine) promulgated its incorrect use! The name always reminded me of the Walt Disney cartoon cells that they offered for sale to tourists: Walt Disney Lady and the Tramp Limited Edition Serigraph Cel I will adjust my verbiage BACK to Die Cutter.
Firstly thanks for everyones replies and for spending your time looking it's really appreciated. I know I have the added advantage of having the coins in hand and I've been completely unbiased in this summary but I really can't find a dimentional difference between the coins. Over 3 forums at the moment 7 - Yes obverse match 3 - 50-50 obverse match 1 - No...but his reasoning now doesn't stand. I spent some time over the weekend breaking down and measuring with calipers the different areas of the obverse, here's the results....My conclusion now is it's an obverse die match but open to opinions! 1- Struck a line between the centres of the earings 2- Struck a line along the top line of the Sri and Ja continuing across to hit the symbol Sim on the right. Conclussion- Distance between lines 1 and 2 match and angular disposition match.Also stikes the Sim symbol at the same point. Struck 2 lines vertically from the centres of the earings... 3- Dimension match 4- Dimension match 5- Bottom angular line of the Ja symbol touching the outer necklace just below the outer leftside bead, also the top position of the Ya symbol, both match. 6- Line 2 strikes the Sim symbol at the same point, also the 2 necklaces connect at line 2 match. 7- Bottom angular line of the Ja symbol strikes the Sri and vertical centre line match. 8- Bottom 2 vertical lines of the Sri position match. 9- bottom vertical line of Ya touches the 2 fronds of clothing match. 10-11-Dimensions match. I could go on but I feel this is enough proof of match... Maybe a big clue having them here in front of me is they look the same...Any thoughts much appreciated.. Thanks Paul. Below reference of symbols..
