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!
Timsha - Pradip Shah
| Issuer | Princely state of Garhwal (Indian princely states) |
|---|---|
| Year | 1717-1772 |
| Type | Log in to see details |
| Value | 1 Timsha |
| Currency | Log in to see details |
| Composition | Log in to see details |
| Weight | Log in to see details |
| 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 | Arabic |
| Obverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Reverse description | Hammered silver flan with a Persian legend in bold, somewhat crude naskh script reading 'Badshah Ghazi' across the central field, continuing the Mughal imperial formula from the obverse. The field shows the typical uneven surface and hammer flow lines associated with hand-struck Garhwali coinage. Partial annular border elements are visible near the rim on some areas. The overall style is consistent with the provincial hill-mint tradition of the 18th century. |
| 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 |
Garhwal's coinage from this period occupies an awkward historical position: the kingdom had nominally acknowledged Mughal suzerainty since the early seventeenth century, yet its rulers maintained enough practical independence to strike their own silver. The Timsha series issued under Pradip Shah reflects that ambiguity — local authority expressed through coin while imperial structures slowly decayed around it.
The "cf." designation against KM#3 suggests this piece deviates from the catalogued type in some respect not fully resolved by the standard reference, likely a die variation or legend spelling the specialists haven't formally classified.