Why and What We Collect--A Tale of Two Barung

[A. G. Maisey]

Fernando, I've been told by a couple of dealers that they're handstruck, but whether they are or not, I don't know enough to argue about.

My understanding is that this type of coin was made in a mint, the slugs of metal were placed in one die, and another die was placed on top of the slug, then it was struck, which resulted in the pattern appearing on both sides of the coin, and the lower die contained the sides ,thus giving the more or less regular shape.

But all this could be flim-flam, because I know nothing in this field.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Fernando, I've been told by a couple of dealers that they're handstruck, but whether they are or not, I don't know enough to argue about.

My understanding is that this type of coin was made in a mint, the slugs of metal were placed in one die, and another die was placed on top of the slug, then it was struck, which resulted in the pattern appearing on both sides of the coin, and the lower die contained the sides ,thus giving the more or less regular shape.

But all this could be flim-flam, because I know nothing in this field.

I know nothing either but... yes, that was basicaly the idea; the slug was placed on the die, which had one of the coin patterns chiseled (high releaf) and the other pattern was engraved in a punch which was struck with a small sledgehammer. By the XVI century the screw press was invented in the West and made things easier ... and more mechanical, to say so. Whether this or a similar system spread to the East soonner or later, one would guess that by, say, the XVIII century, coin striking already involved some mechanic interference.

.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by fernando

... the slug was placed on the die, which had one of the coin patterns chiseled (high releaf) and the other pattern was engraved in a punch which was struck with a small sledgehammer. ..

Although in the case of Karshapanas another ancient method has to be considered: the so called punch coins. In such case the patterns were no proturding from the coin face but instead punched in.

[A. G. Maisey]

Fernando, everything you say is as I understand it, however, as it was explained to me, the open-sided lower die was not used with this Indian type, but rather a type of die that restrained the sides, resulting in a more even form.

In any case, however they were made, they're something I like, and although I know next to nothing about them, if they were still readily available, and still reasonably priced, I would still buy them.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Fernando, everything you say is as I understand it, however, as it was explained to me, the open-sided lower die was not used with this Indian type, but rather a type of die that restrained the sides, resulting in a more even form...

The rupees you have, yes.
But these ancient coins were shapeless even before being struck:

http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore...the_maury.aspx

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

...In any case, however they were made, they're something I like, and although I know next to nothing about them, if they were still readily available, and still reasonably priced, i would still buy them...

Are you referring to (more rupees) or examples like the ones i posted ?

[A. G. Maisey]

I'm talking about coins like the top 8 in the posted images.

My understanding of manufacture applies to these.