I purchased these from a good friend who is selling off his collection. Some of the varieties are extremely rare. The hollow-handle spade is in practically uncirculated condition with a nice character and great patina. The Wang Mang spade on the left is a contemporary counterfeit, which I bought because of the sheer amount of risk that the counterfeiter was under when he made this. Maybe he had gotten captured and was killed for making this coin. The Huo Bu spade on the right is an oddity. It is made of iron and has the inscription repeated on the reverse. I doubt it is contemporary with Wang Mang’s rule, but I do not know when it would have been made. These knives show the progression from the earliest pointed knives (on the left) to the earliest Ming knives (on the right). Some of the shapes I did not have yet, and the knife on the left has an uncatalogued inscription (Wu, or 5). And I bought several ant noses. The three on the right are extremely rare varieties, which read (from left to right) “Jin” (“metal”), “Jin” (Chu denomination), and an unknown character sid to be “Yong” (“forever”). This “Yong” coin (I disagree with the reading but don’t have a better theory at this time) is extremely rare. It is unlisted in most catalogues, and I only know of three that exist, all of which show evidence of being from the same hoard. The two coins on the right are from the Wang Mang period. One is the handle from a Qi Dao Wu Bai knife. It shows clear signs of being detatched from the blade and filed down to a mostly-round shape. The other is a Da Quan Wu Shi with the inscription repeated on the reverse. This is the first time I have been able to aquire this kind of error.
Some individual shots. Square-shoulder hollow-handle spade. “Ge liu zhu” (I have some doubts as to this reading) ant-nose (this is actually the “ant” coin). “Jin” (”metal”) ant-nose “Jin” (Chu denomination) ant-nose “Yong (?)” (“Forever”) ant-nose Error Da Quan Wu Shi error. With the inscription on both sides. Qi Dao Wu Bai handle The contemporary cointerfeit Wang Mang value-1000 spade next to an official one for comparison. The strange Huo Bu made of iron and has the inscription repeated on the reverse. Huo Quan error with the characters reversed. I have been wanting one for some time.
Wow, @TypeCoin971793, what a phenomenal group!! Congrats!!! The character on the hollow handle is beautiful, and I particularly love the ant. The iron huo bu is just bizarre... and fascinating! It's interesting to note that iron was one of the infamous 6 monopolies introduced in 17, as was coinage. Maybe it was a presentation piece to mark the occasion... That's just idle speculation of course, but it sure is a neat coin. (Are there examples of iron charms from a later period?)
As a complete fool when it comes to all Chinese coins, I understand nothing about 'grading'. Rather than answering this here, I believe it would be a public service to start a new post and explain terms like "practically uncirculated", "nice character" and "great patina" as they apply to Chinese coins. I have no experience with spade/knife wear as opposed to weak casting or corrosion flaking that removes detail. It appears that rare Chinese items retain value better in conditions that would eliminate demand for equally rare Greek or Roman coins. It also appears that cleaning is considered a more serious fault but this seems reasonable as the corrosion would seem to be more important in determining authenticity of cast items than struck. I am not asking for a summery of what makes rare coins rare but just matters of condition desirability. A thread for the benefit of beginners might be well received by many.
No, of course I do not. Who would approve of such rare and beautiful coins? In all seriousness, they are a fantastic bunch of coins. If you hadn’t bought that hollow-handle, I would eventually have caved in and bought it myself. While checking out everything for you in hand, I somewhat regretted letting you have that spade and the jin ant-nose. But we divided everything fairly and it’s not like I didn’t get anything.... Just a small note: Yes, the Wu 五broad pointed knife is not listed in Hartill. But Hartill only list an incredibly small percentage of the different inscriptions and shapes (“a selection is illustrated”) that other catalogues do. Coole, Thierry and several Chinese catalogues all list this inscription, some arguing it is part of a larger series, all inscribed with different numerals (Liu 六being the most common, but numbers up to at least 12 are known). But what do you think about this piece in hand? When I handled it, the first thing I noticed was the extremely low-relief of the character. And what about the patina? Not saying it is fake, just curious. As you know, I wasn’t very comfortable with it in hand. Even though I am not a big Wang Mang fan, I like the pieces you’ve bought! At first I also thought that the iron Huobu might have been a charm, but look at the legs; the broken-off remains of two other spades can be seen. This means that it was likely found stacked, which definitely argues against a charm-like purpose in my opinion. Iron Huobu’s are known, but these date from the much later five dynasties/ten-kingdoms period. More importantly, they also differ quite a bit in terms of workmanship and style; much more crudely cast and with the legs further apart than the original Wang Mang prototype. This intriguing specimen is much closer to the original Huobu’s. I am positive it is from the Wang collection (it shows up on the rubbings that still exist), but perhaps some additional info is recorded in the notes that came with the collection? Did you ask our mutual friend about this? And what is your opinion on the Yong Ant-nose? It is a highly debated type, and it differs quite significantly in fabric from all other ant-nose types. What do you think about the weird ‘rim’ it has on the reverse? I have documented 6 specimens (assuming yours isn’t the same as the one in the Fisher collection), including the one in my personal collection and another specimen present in a collection in China. All do seem to have been part of the same hoard (or from the same forger’s workshop ) Great idea! @TypeCoin971793, if you need any help, you know where to find me! By the way, sorry everyone for the long absence here on the forum. I’ve been incredibly busy the previous year with studying and the excavation at the end of the school year. I have been lurking, but my last post dates from February this year. Now that summer is here, let’s change that! Kind regards, Mika
You are correct. My bad. I wrote this in haste. I thought the knife was perfectly genuine in hand. The patina on the reverse was exactly as I would expect it to be, though the obverse does look a bit odd. The “breaks” are actually breaks in the mould, not remnants from other coins. The style is cruder than Wang Mang coins, but not as crude as Five Dynasties era copies. It is a total mystery. A charm is untirely reasonable. No, but I definitely need to. The inscription is not “Yong”. I am 100% sure of that. Pictured below is what I make out the character to be. On the right is what I see (there is clear separation between the strokes), and the left is possible if the outer strokes were supposed to be connected. Do you see anything like it in your dictionary? As for the “rim” on the reverse, my guess is that it was an outline of the coin in the reverse side of the mould. These were likely a private casting given their rarity and the fact all were found in the same hoard. The defects on the top edge would support this if the creator was not experienced in creating coins. Good to know! The patina shares an interesting story. Looking at the hole, I see clear evidence of being encrusted with a patina of appreciable thickness. The rest of the coin has been harshly cleaned revealing the raw bronze. The surface is pitted like I’d expect for a coin buried in the ground for many years.
Here is a compilation of the various archaic forms of the character “Yong” (“Everlasting”). As you can see, none of them match up to what is seen on the coin. The strokes are in the wrong location if the coin’s character has 4 strokes, and there are too many strokes for “Yong” if it has 6 strokes.
I think the character highlighted in black is the oldest version of the character. It appears to represent a river, which would flow forever, hence the meaning “everlasting”. The character on the coin bears no semblance to a running river or water channel. I am very certain that “yong” is the incorrect reading for this coin.
