Catalog
See full images - free registration
Continue with Google - no registration!
or register with email
Why register? Just to keep bots out of our catalog. Your email stays private - we will never share it or send you anything uninvited. We guarantee you that!
1⁄16 Mohur - Bengal Presidency
| Issuer | East India Company |
|---|---|
| Year | 1182-1203 |
| Type | Log in to see details |
| Value | Log in to see details |
| Currency | Log in to see details |
| Composition | Log in to see details |
| Weight | 0.77 g |
| Diameter | Log in to see details |
| Thickness | Log in to see details |
| Shape | Log in to see details |
| Technique | Log in to see details |
| Orientation | Log in to see details |
| Engraver(s) | Log in to see details |
| In circulation to | Log in to see details |
| Reference(s) | Log in to see details |
| Obverse description | Log in to see details |
|---|---|
| Obverse script | Log in to see details |
| Obverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Reverse description | Central field bearing a multi-line Persian legend in cursive Naskh script, recording the mint name and regnal year. The legend is arranged in horizontal registers across the flan. A dotted border encircles the design, consistent with the obverse treatment, reflecting the characteristic style of Bengal Presidency hammered gold coinage. |
| Reverse script | Log in to see details |
| Reverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Edge | Log in to see details |
| Mint | Kolkata / Calcutta / Murshidabad, India (1757-date) |
| Mintage | Log in to see details |
| Additional information |
Bengal Presidency gold fractions were struck to the Murshidabad standard, a weight system inherited from Mughal imperial coinage and maintained by the Company specifically to avoid disrupting local bazaar trade. The 1/16 mohur occupied the lowest practical denomination in gold, bridging transactions that silver sicca rupees couldn't efficiently cover. Company mints at this period operated under the fiction of Mughal imperial authority — coins were issued in the name of Shah Alam II with regnal years expressed in the Fasli calendar, which is why the dating runs across a range rather than a single year.