novice » 1-August-2007 11:37pm

Jujid AE pul, al-Jadidah.
Please compare with coin #46144.

vapp » 2-August-2007 1:20pm

Date is poorly designated, but seems to be 770 AH.

novice » 3-August-2007 1:09pm

In my opinion dating disputable.

novice » 3-August-2007 1:11pm

If to accept for the fact that on a coin it is visible 77 why it cannot be (7)77 AH?

vapp » 3-August-2007 2:15pm

Oh, yes, I agree. The date is really assigned as 77, so 770 AH and 777 AH are both possible.

hayq » 3-August-2007 2:38pm

Thanks, friends!

CyberNumis » 3-August-2007 8:13pm

I'm assuming the date referred to is at the bottom of the obverse photo? If that is what is being discussed and is in fact a date and not part of the design which seems to be in all four corners of the obverse and reverse, then unless the jujids wrote their 7's as 8's, the date should be read as 88x.

novice » 3-August-2007 8:54pm

Dear CyberNumis, if I have correctly understood, you have wrongly accepted an ornament " knot of happiness " for numbers of date, and actually numbers of date are under a word the year, merged with a framework, on the left side of a picture.

vapp » 3-August-2007 10:05pm

Yes, small and imperceptible cyphers are inside the frame, being sticked to lower line:
darb/
al-Jadidah/
sanat/
vv

Vladimir Suchy » 29-August-2019 10:13am

477, i.e. 774 h.