since you have shown your caliper and the statue on the photo, I have to say that 14 mm is too much, since you have an empty gap between the top of the statue and your caliper. So the statue is NOT 14 mm, but less, maybe even 13 mm?
No, Ole, you are wrong, its exactly 14 mm, the photo is taken from the right side, thats why you have a gap on the left side
I measured it several times and its always 14 mm
If you want I can send you one more photo with the direct view from the top
Ok, OK, I do believe you, but it looked differently you must admit?
I have so many Indian coins (1.500) and I start to think, that there is nothing like a "normal" coin from there, but that's why it's so interesting to collect and study them.
It shouldn't matter what angle it is taken at, the calliper blade would still be flush with the coin and this still making contact with the tip of the statue. I have just tried to recreate it but the angle does not change the visual aspect of the calliper position so I agree with Sjoelund, it does not look correctly aligned.
So rather than just bark that it is exact, could you not at least retake the image so it does look like the exact size you are stating?. Then we can move on from there. I mean no offence, but I prefer to see for myself that the statement matches the shown image.
Why I think angle doesn't matter with a calliper blade. The shield width does not change, nor does it look different from angles like your own image.
Restoration addict : Verdigris Removal : Zinc White spot removal : Iron Rust Removal : Silver brooch/necklace mount Removal
in my collection I have documented this, which is now part of the SCWC
and I see that I also have marked, as a comment, in my collection, that my 1998C, km296.4, is 5.8 mm..... but I can't remember, what I measured. I'll have a look when I'm back in Paris in a few weeks time It's certainly NOT the thickness of the coins, since it's between 1.50 and 1.70 mm on my 3 coins!
I was looking into this matter. There may be a type B lion for this type of coin. But I have not seen it myself. There are so many die varieties in Indian coins. But the picture is clearly showing a type other than type A and The best way to differentiate A, B and other type lions is to check the hair lines to the right of the lion(mane). Type A & B lions are thicker than C & D. Type A is having 5 lines of hair on the right side where as type B is having 4 lines of hair on the right side. It's the best way to recognize the line type (according to my opinion). Also differentiating between type C & D is very difficult. Indian mints are not very famous for their production quality. It's also almost impossible to obtain UNC circulating pieces.
find me in facebook
www.facebook.com/akash.drogunks
Quote: "gillesdebilde2003"Could you tell me one more thing?
What does it mean in coin description on numista:
KM#296.3 (Calcutta Mint; Type C; 7mm, edge flat)
KM#296.4 (Calcutta Mint; Type C; 5-6mm, edge flat)
KM#296.5 (Calcutta Mint; Type C; 3-5mm, edge flat)
I mean 7 mm, 5-6 mm, 3-5 mm. Is it a thickness of the coin?
Could it be the base width of the statue.? Krause is a little obscure as to what it is.
Certainly isn't coin thickness.
Restoration addict : Verdigris Removal : Zinc White spot removal : Iron Rust Removal : Silver brooch/necklace mount Removal
OK Ole, I understand the 2 digit height difference
But what is 7 mm, 5-6 mm, 3-5 mm in coin description on Numista?
Do you know that or still have to look for this info?
Best regards,
Radek
It's rather strange that there is a large variation, 2 mm (3-5 ?) in a small design element like that.
It is also strange that if it is exactly 5 mm it could fit in two different types?
Quote: "gillesdebilde2003"OK Ole, I understand the 2 digit height difference
But what is 7 mm, 5-6 mm, 3-5 mm in coin description on Numista?
Do you know that or still have to look for this info?
Best regards,
Radek
Hi,
no and since nobody asked to have it documented, when the coin was added, it can be anything.... Yes, I certainly do NOT like things like that! Why don't you make a change request to have it removed, if refused, then the guy will have to document it, if accepted, then it's because it's without meaning. Please go ahead, it'll be fun for you and don't forget to keep us up to date on the subject?
Ole
Lord have mercy! I love Indian coins...but I only have the intelligence to collect by type. I only attribute them in a grneral way. My head hurts otherwise...I sure do like them though...
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
I know Asoka column obverse is a vast topic and never will be 100% solved but maybe someone can give me some suggestions and answers.
This is my point of view:
Both coins are the same, 13 mm tall lion so according to numista it has to be C type (by the way how to measure a lion, from ears top to the bottom of pedestal or from head top to pedestal bottom, ears are a bit higher than head?)
But numista shows three options of C type (beside Proof C type), all have different catalogue and all have edge flat, what the difference then?
Is it a question of C1 C2 and C3 options mentioned on this blog website:? http://beekar-the-numismatist.blogspot.com/2020/08/obverse-lion-types-and-die-varieties-in.html
or is a question of these dimensions 7mm, 5-6mm, 3-5mm but probably nobody knows what is it about?
I have looked at my 3 coins today, it rains, so I took the time?
I have two 296.2 (small and large Noida dot) and one 296.4 (Calcutta).
I didn't find anything, which had diminished from 7 mm (296.2) to 5 to 6 mm (296.4) on the two types!
I believe, we should discard those mentions of a not documented measure in those coins. Please make the CR for the 4 types and then we'll see, what the referee says.
So, Paul and I have taken the time to set this documentation up and we have in our opinion everything needed to make the CR.
I have noted, that somebody made a CR to take the “notes” away, but the job was not finished correctly. I'll set up a separate CR to have the year lines in order, without the old “comments”. I'll be back when I've the CR for that ready.
Here is my suggestion to rearrange the year lines and “deleting” the KM#296.4 and 296.5 from Numista, since they were directly linked to the “notes” from SCWC.
Dont you think now the 296.6 should be converted into 296.4 if we deleted different lengths of the edge flats?
I will check today all my 2 rupees #296.? coins and measure the lengths of the edges. Will let you know if I observed varieties in lengths.
Have a nice day Radek
No, I don't think so. I also thought about it, but I still want to have numista and SCWC corresponding, so I suggest not to use 296.4 and 5, and leave the 296.6. Anyway, SCWC will not change, but numista will have two sub-numbers less. Explained in the comments section.?
It's certainly NOT the thickness of the coins, since it's between 1.50 and 1.70 mm on my 3 coins!
The best way to differentiate A, B and other type lions is to check the hair lines to the right of the lion(mane). Type A & B lions are thicker than C & D. Type A is having 5 lines of hair on the right side where as type B is having 4 lines of hair on the right side. It's the best way to recognize the line type (according to my opinion). Also differentiating between type C & D is very difficult. Indian mints are not very famous for their production quality. It's also almost impossible to obtain UNC circulating pieces. 
