That's a pretty clear statement of motivation Ariel.

I've often encountered this and I continue to find it very interesting.

Weapons of conflict raised by desperate men in desperate times .
There's something to be said for that . :)

I am an extremely "focused" collector: while I love to see, handle, read about every sort of weapon (cold, hot, edged, etc.) I only collect things from Continental SEA. Indeed, I am so focused, I typically eschew most Vietnamese weapons as they are, to my eye, more Chinese than SEA.

I have, over the years, acquired some nice pieces from other areas, particularly if they are interesting or under-priced. However, I rarely keep those things around very long--if something doesn't "belong" or "fit into" my existing collection, it makes me feel...uncomfortable.

Yes, this is likely a condition one would find in the DSM-V (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), but I am who I am. :shrug:

One benefit of my compulsive collecting behavior, however, is I do enjoy collecting the entire spectrum of weapons from my favored region--plain, battle-weary examples happily reside alongside lavish beautiful things.

Yeah, quite a difference in age between these interesting examples of yours and the early karshapanas i posted ... actualy the only pieces i keep since i quit collecting coins (no budget for collecting both early/silver/gold coins & antique weapons :shrug:).
It didn't occur to me that, at the age of your rupees, coins still were hand struck; my kignorance :o

Andrew,
No reason to exchuse that you have chosen to collect within a relatively 'small' area :-).
So have I, as my wife many years ago explained to me that I should chose what to collect. I had Indian weapons a fantastic saif, and some beautiful shasquas, but the Indian colelction was by far the biggest, so I coose Indian weapons.
To collect weapons from a specific area means, that research is directed to this area only, and it gives you a very big knowledge about weapons from this area. Some restricts their collection even more, to maybe 15th to 18th century, and this gives an even more concentrated knowledge :-).
Jens

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.

.

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.

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.

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

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


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

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

My understanding of manufacture applies to these.

I'm quite happy in my "small" world, Jens...as I suspect you are. :)

Hello Ian,
i'm not totally convinced with Cato's barung aging. i believe the second one you posted is older than 1930 (or 1920, for that matter). below are pictures of Panglima Unga and his compatriots. if you notice, Panglima Unga's barung appears to be what Cato would call a post 1930 piece, and so is the two gentlemen in the middle behind him.
as far as what is more appealing, i would say it depends. i started collecting wanting a nice barung. once i got a pretty decent one, i'd like to get a junggayan. after that, an ivory junggayan. and so on, and so forth. we have OCD, fellas. once we get what we want, we always strive for something else, lol