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 Cash - Cảnh Hưng Thông Bảo, Công

Issuer Imperial Vietnamese Mint (Lê Dynasty)
Year 1740-1786
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 3.60 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 景興通寶
Reverse description Central square perforation flanked by a single Chinese character 工 (Công, denoting the Ministry of Works) positioned to the right of the hole, cast in raised relief in regular script. The remaining field is plain and unadorned, with a raised outer rim encircling the coin. The sparse reverse design is consistent with standard Lê Dynasty cash coinage practice, where a single mint or administrative identifier character distinguishes issues from different issuing ministries or workshops.
Reverse script Log in to see details
Reverse lettering Log in to see details
Edge Log in to see details
Mint Log in to see details
Mintage Log in to see details
Additional information

Cảnh Hưng Thông Bảo coinage spans the extraordinarily long reign of Emperor Lê Hiển Tông, who ruled nominally from 1740 to 1786 while real power rested with the Trịnh lords. The sheer volume and variety of cash types issued under this reign reflects that fractured authority — multiple mints operated under Trịnh supervision, producing dozens of reverse mark varieties as a rudimentary means of mint or batch identification. The "Công" reverse mark on this piece is one such designation, catalogued distinctly by both Barker and Toda precisely because these varieties were systematically differentiated at issue.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE