Dear paul,

Sorry for the delay due to this and that... Here we go...

Please refer to the photos of the two coins herein...Both are in my collection and these are Najibabad Mint with AH1216/ RY43. One is with He in Sim of Jalus on reverse and the other a cluster of dots instead of He.

I am of the opinion that the one with He is of the East India Company ,  in line with the Bareli coins with same initial for Hussain Ali Khan as mint master. And the other without He ( but the same AH/RY)  is of Awadh.

My hypothesis is that for initial part of the Year 1216/43, Najibabad was under Awadh and when it was taken over by EIC , the mint was contracted by them to the same contractor at Bareli. Coins were struck by the contractor but later the mint was closed owing to the EIC policy ( probably for administrative and cost purposes )  to consolidate and not to have multiple mints in the same region.

Arguments in favour of this hypothesis:

1.     Please refer page no. 474 of your book, where you opined that “......It is worth noting that Prinsep recorded the operations of the Najibabad Mint were suspended in RY43 of Shah alam (i.e.1800-01)before the annexation by the British. This of course leaves the question of where were the rupees bearing later dates produced?......”

 

Please note , as you rightly pointed out on page 472 first para, that the town passed to the British in 1801. AH1216 falls in 1801. But RY 43 of Shah Alam falls in 1802 (He,  having been coronated in 1759) . Therefore AH1216/43 spans both 1801 and 1802. So

a)     The coin without He was produced in 1801 when Najibabad was under Awadh .

b)    The Coin with He was produced in 1802 and is an EIC issue .

 

2.     Then , was Prinsep wrong? No... It is quite likely that the pieces that Prinsep examined (for RY43) might not have contained the AH on obverse. Please note that Najibabd  coins with He are rare even today and more often than not , the AH goes missing on the obverse since it occurs on the left periphery. But please refer to the attached jpg page from Dinesh Master’s book on Awadh and yu will see his coin clearly bears the AH1216.

 

3.     What would have happened if EIC had continued with the Mint? Then I think they would have continued with a fixed RY43 , but changed AH on obv. As in case of Bareli.

4.     What are the other evidence? If we refer the 3rd Photo in the jpg from Dinesh Master book , we will see the additional letter Ali to the left of RY on reverse....there by clearly indicating that the contractor is most surely Hussein Ali (Khan).

5.     Could it be possible that  Hussain Ali Khan  also worked for Awadh and therefore  AH1216/43 with He should also be Awadh coins and NOT Eic coins? The answer will be  NO,. Because in case of Bareli, He appears ONLY and ONLY  on coins of  AH1216  with fixed RY37 ( refer all the coins of Bareli in Krause as well as Dinesh Master under Awadh) when Bareli was under EIC and therefore clearly indicating he was an EIC appointee only .

Arguments against this hypothesis:

1.     The Couplet. In case of Bareli coins of EIC, it is the Sahib Qiran couplet where as for Najibabad coins, it is the Fazl Hami din couplet....Why two different couplets for the same contractor in the same region? The answer probably could be,  the British did not want to suddenly discontinue the familiar couplet for Najibabad coins ( thereby altering the coin’s appearance)  thereby inconveniencing  the mass of illiterate public/ administration.

In view of the above, the He coins of Najibabad will be EIC.

PS: Dinesh Master also lists 1216/42 with initial Ghain which is certainly Awadh

Please offer your views.... The Rani Sukoon coin ( RY46)  that you have illustrated in your book is of Jagadharee as commonly understood by collectors.