Can somebody identify this for me? 1 1

[Trevor40]

[Trevor40]

[Trevor40]

[JKK]

7 hours ago, KarenHolcomb said:

So I did quite a bit of looking today and let me just say, JKK, that idk how you were able to dicipher any of the markings on this thing. I had alphabets from several periods in front of me andd couldn't make heads or tales of what the markings on my coin even are. Smh! Something I do wonder is if this is supposed to be part of a 'tree'? But one site said that these are usually barrell shaped as mkne is but most of what I see online are pretty much round. Also, I don't wanna challenge you because I know you know your spoon, but it seems most dirham weights( I guess that's how they are referred to) weighed in more the same as our Cent. Mine being 1.47gms and the typical dirhem of the era was about 2.82gms, then wouldn't this one be a half dirhem? Also, the reason I too turned toward the Mongols was because of the year. It doesn't seem like 1263 was anything other than the Mongols but idk because it does get awfully confusing when you've even thought about that kind of stuff. Incredibly interesting, but confusing all the same. Od course I could still be mixing the 1236/1263 up again but still can't find anything prior to 1268 or 1238. I think I must be mixing them up because that didn't make sense as I was keying it, 1238 was all I wanted it enter. I hate this disorder! It makes everything more difficult and so much time gets wasted.

It looks like C#140c.1 or C#140c.4. If you seek those out and your coin doesn't seem to match them, then maybe I'm wrong about some aspect. It is also possible that there were numbers between these that used to be in Krause (or whatever the C# pre-Krause was). Don't know for sure. If you think I made a mistake, I'd love to know what your source is.

With alphabets, much is orientation. Your coin's reverse is rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise. I'm not fluent in Arabic, but what's on your coin is the Arabic abjad (alphabet).

AH 1263 was about 1846-47 CE. I don't claim to be an expert on Mongol history. If you decide to research it, maybe you'll turn up some reason why Mongols should in some way, any way, be associated with this coin. If so, please let me know where you found it, as it would absolutely fascinate me.

[KarenHolcomb]

19 minutes ago, JKK said:

It looks like C#140c.1 or C#140c.4. If you seek those out and your coin doesn't seem to match them, then maybe I'm wrong about some aspect. It is also possible that there were numbers between these that used to be in Krause (or whatever the C# pre-Krause was). Don't know for sure. If you think I made a mistake, I'd love to know what your source is.

With alphabets, much is orientation. Your coin's reverse is rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise. I'm not fluent in Arabic, but what's on your coin is the Arabic abjad (alphabet).

AH 1263 was about 1846-47 CE. I don't claim to be an expert on Mongol history. If you decide to research it, maybe you'll turn up some reason why Mongols should in some way, any way, be associated with this coin. If so, please let me know where you found it, as it would absolutely fascinate me.

Oh no! Its you are wrong about anything. O just wondered if it could be a half instead of a whole based on the weight. I think I have always taken your thoughts as correct, even when you start out by saying you really don't know much about...., and you never even said that on this one so I know that you are confident a nd then too so am I, dear Sir. 

I am absolutely lost here and have no idea what I am even doing. The more I read the worse it gets. So you guys are the only thing even keeping me going with this. I would have given up already and tossed it in with my other one in my 'I haven't a clue basket' and there it would set for me to forget about. So please don't ever think that I would question your knowledge, dear Sir. Okie dokie? I put great value to everything you say. So stop being a spoon already, lol! 

Now that that's out of the way...what the heck is C#140.1 and 4? Is that referring to that 4th standard deal or am looking dumber with each of my responses?

[JKK]

Just now, KarenHolcomb said:

Oh no! Its you are wrong about anything. O just wondered if it could be a half instead of a whole based on the weight. I think I have always taken your thoughts as correct, even when you start out by saying you really don't know much about...., and you never even said that on this one so I know that you are confident a nd then too so am I, dear Sir. 

I am absolutely lost here and have no idea what I am even doing. The more I read the worse it gets. So you guys are the only thing even keeping me going with this. I would have given up already and tossed it in with my other one in my 'I haven't a clue basket' and there it would set for me to forget about. So please don't ever think that I would question your knowledge, dear Sir. Okie dokie? I put great value to everything you say. So stop being a spoon already, lol! 

Now that that's out of the way...what the heck is C#140.1 and 4? Is that referring to that 4th standard deal or am looking dumber with each of my responses?

I can be wrong about many things. That's why I said that if I made a mistake, I'd like to know. I'm not omniscient. Feel free to question anything I say. Of course, I'll take that more seriously when it has evidential support.

Those are the catalog numbers in the catalog where I looked it up (and in response to your query, went all the way back and looked it up all over again to make sure, then went to Numista to make absolutely sure I wasn't wrong on the denomination). By handing them to you, I am giving you (or anyone) the key identifiers to use in attempting to refute or uphold my ID.

[KarenHolcomb]

1 hour ago, JKK said:

I can be wrong about many things. That's why I said that if I made a mistake, I'd like to know. I'm not omniscient. Feel free to question anything I say. Of course, I'll take that more seriously when it has evidential support.

Those are the catalog numbers in the catalog where I looked it up (and in response to your query, went all the way back and looked it up all over again to make sure, then went to Numista to make absolutely sure I wasn't wrong on the denomination). By handing them to you, I am giving you (or anyone) the key identifiers to use in attempting to refute or uphold my ID.

I know I went back and proofread my last response. How did all those o's wind up where I's should have been? 

So yeah, I think it is about to go into that basket. Catalogs? Would that be Sears or JC Penneys? Really? I am just glad somebody gets it cause I sure don't.

[JKK]

44 minutes ago, KarenHolcomb said:

I know I went back and proofread my last response. How did all those o's wind up where I's should have been? 

So yeah, I think it is about to go into that basket. Catalogs? Would that be Sears or JC Penneys? Really? I am just glad somebody gets it cause I sure don't.

The Standard Catalog of World Coins, commonly called "Krause" after the publisher (who may now be done for; not quite sure) is a multi-volume set of coin catalogues. They also have paper money catalogues (I think there are more than one; I don't much collect currency). Krause includes volumes covering 1601-1700 CE, 1701-1800, 1801-1900, 1901-2000, and 2001-near present. I have the first four; the final one is uninteresting to me, as are all coins after 2000. The volumes are not cheap; for easy reference, I use the CD versions (nothing like the ability to search for text strings).

Flawed as they are, the Krause volumes are as near to a general global identification bible as is readily available. Numista and Catawiki, two important global online sources, tend to use Krause ID numbers. Some of the Krause numbers begin with KM (for Krause-Mishner); others begin with C or Y. I believe these to reference other catalogues that were integrated somehow into Krause; over the years, many of the C and Y numbers have received KM redesignations.

Their pricing is not at all reliable; it tends to be inconsistent and very high, and anyone using them to price coins will need to check sold online listings in order to gain reality checks. Over the years, to save space, Krause has kicked out some of their IDs--this is a *spoon*er especially with Chinese varieties. They don't have pictures of every coin, but they have more than Numista. What Numista nearly always has, that Krause often lacks, is weight. Weight and diameter are essential measures. To fail to volunteer them in an identification query is a great mistake. To make an excuse to refuse to provide them, yet still call out for assistance, sends a very alienating message--kind of like asking one's neighbor to mow one's yard, then adding that he should supply his own fuel. In the case of Moroccan dirhams, which were re-standardized more than once during the 1800s, having the weight in grams is essential to any form of intelligent ID. This is especially true because many issues are not pictured in Krause (or in Numista).

This doesn't happen by sorcery or crystal balls of omniscience. Identification normally happens because someone who has spent a significant amount of money decides to share the benefits of that sunk cost, take all the available evidence and go digging in this multi-standard quagmire, already hampered by the weaknesses of the catalogue, in order to furnish some identification.

There. Now you understand what is meant by catalogues, Krause in particular, and how this occurs (or does not). If you throw it into a bucket after all this, that's your choice, and is not my problem. It's identified, unless you choose to reject and disprove the identification. That's a valid choice. If you think I'm wrong, fine; then let me know what you think it really is. I can always learn.

[KarenHolcomb]

Ok. Well I can see that we are experience some big time miscommunication here and I am going to chalk that up to my many typos. 

Allow me to reiterate or maybe just start all over.

I hadn't a spooning clue what this coin was when I received it. I had never, ever, ever seen one in real life that I could hold in my hand.. When my friend sent me the photos which are the same as the ones I created this posting with because I did not physically have it in my possession at that time, I really thought it'd be bigger than a US Half Dollar. Ok? Now maybe you see just how ignorant I was on this type of coin and any like it. 

Again, I am dyslexic and often times I mix numbers up. So when I was trying to research it I was likely looking at 1236 and 1263 congruantly and well, there wasn't anything to be found about AH 1236 Morocco.  So I tried to figure out what was up in that region at AH 1236, which I think must have been ruled by the Mongols. Spoon! Idek at this point but I do know that the Mongols were there and remember that I was looking at the totally wrong year one minute and the right year the next and the two were overlapping inside my head so nothing was making sense. And that's where the whole Mongolian thing creeped in here. 

As soon as I had the coin in hand I weighed it and measured it across with a freaking Stanley Tape Measure to get you the size as close as I could. I was quite shocked by how small it was compared to how I had imagined it being. And then I read that the average weight of a Moroccan 4th Standard(whatever that is) 1 dirhem in AH 1263 is 2.82gms. I'm also reading about half dirhems and quarter dirhems etc etc and assume since mine is half the expected weight it must be a half dirhem. To me that was logical. I suppose logic doesn't always apply because then you think I am questioning you and I wasn't, at all. I will have you know that I copied everything you said about Moulay Abd'al-Rohman and zarb/durian and Marrabish and all that you said so I would have it at hand to do this research that I am trying to do. And FYI there are 4 of those guys and dates seem to run backwards so that confuses things even more. At least for me.

And this is getting too long. I am not questioning your knowledge and your ability to know where to look for the information I need. I am saying that I do not have the knowledge of where to look. I straight up Google searched 'AH 1263 Moroccan 4th Standard dirhem of the Moulay Abd'al Rohman' and still can't find one like this and while a value would be fantastic all I really want is to see a photo of another coin exactly like mine. 

That's it. I just want to see a picture of an exact mate. That's all I wanted from the start. To know that it is real. Authentic. And not stolen. Ok? 

I bet if you look you'll find that AH 36 = 1820/21 October 9th. Then maybe you can kind of grasp what we go through and how things can get all jumbled when looking at 2 years from 2 periods and think you're looking at one. 

I won't ask for any more help. Sorry if I upset you. 

[Just Bob]

4 hours ago, JKK said:

... others begin with C or Y. I believe these to reference other catalogues that were integrated somehow into Krause; over the years, many of the C and Y numbers have received KM redesignations.

 

C#: "Coins of the World, 1750-1850," by William D. Craig

Y#: "Modern World Coins and Current Coins of the World," by Richard S. Yeoman

Not that this adds anything of any substance to the conversation, but I just thought I would provide a bit of trivial info.

[JKK]

9 minutes ago, Just Bob said:

C#: "Coins of the World, 1750-1850," by William D. Craig

Y#: "Modern World Coins and Current Coins of the World," by Richard S. Yeoman

Not that this adds anything of any substance to the conversation, but I just thought I would provide a bit of trivial info.

Thanks, Just Bob. Those were in the category of "data I probably saw at some point and that I completely spaced."

[Just Bob]

5 minutes ago, JKK said:

Thanks, Just Bob. Those were in the category of "data I probably saw at some point and that I completely spaced."

I'm glad I am not the only one that has that problem. I remembered the authors, but I had to look up the names of the catalogs. (And Craig's first name )

[Trevor40]

Karen, this was the closest example to your coin..

These markings compared to yours with the ooos on the side & everything else look the closest. We’re all just trying to help. I used eBay, an American sight for you to compare.