This is a Crusader imitation of a dirham from the Ayyubids. It is an imitation of the dirham of al-Salih Isma'il, Damascus, 635 H / 1237 AD and 637-643 H / 1239-1245 AD. It is believed to have been struck in Acre.
Malloy: Coins of the Crusader States, 1994. p136 #9.
Цитата: "numisquare"This is a Crusader imitation of a dirham from the Ayyubids. It is an imitation of the dirham of al-Salih Isma'il, Damascus, 635 H / 1237 AD and 637-643 H / 1239-1245 AD. It is believed to have been struck in Acre.
Malloy: Coins of the Crusader States, 1994. p136 #9.
Wow, I didn't expect it to be a Crusader coin. So it must have some value, then?
Is it an imitation of this coin? It looks pretty close to the actual thing to me, what is it that makes it a Crusader imitation?
Thank you so much, numisquare. As always, you're a star!
Michael Bates indicated that these imitations are more common than their prototypes. I looked for a die match in reference books, as the legends in the margin that are visible did not match the prototype coins. The match was with #9. Although not completely visible, the marginal legends are different. The imitation has the date written in Arabic but using the Christian year of 1253 and it is in the margin of the reverse side. The genuine coin has the date from the Islamic calendar in the obverse margin.
Цитата: "numisquare"Michael Bates indicated that these imitations are more common than their prototypes. I looked for a die match in reference books, as the legends in the margin that are visible did not match the prototype coins. The match was with #9. Although not completely visible, the marginal legends are different. The imitation has the date written in Arabic but using the Christian year of 1253 and it is in the margin of the reverse side. The genuine coin has the date from the Islamic calendar in the obverse margin.
Thanks a lot! I will try to learn more about them. :)