Home World & Ancient Coins Forum

British India Medal Reference?

pruebaspruebas Posts: 4,582 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited August 13, 2020 7:00PM in World & Ancient Coins Forum

Does anyone have the Pudd (not sure what it stands for) reference to British Indian medals?

Comments

  • pruebaspruebas Posts: 4,582 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I have what I think is a trial strike of this common souvenir medal. Mine has the same obverse with the mint building and text "H. Ms. Mint, Bombay," but the reverse is blank. The medal pictured is cataloged as Pudd-990.1 per Stephen Album. I would like to find out the catalog number of mine (without text on the reverse).

    Mine also looks a bit nicer! ;)

    Thank you.

  • bosoxbosox Posts: 1,565 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I don't have it, but here it is. Puddester is a Canadian. I have met him. Worked in their foreign service.

    https://brooklyngallery.com/0252-tm170.html

    Numismatic author & owner of the Uncommon Cents collections. 2011 Fred Bowman award winner, 2020 J. Douglas Ferguson award winner, & 2022 Paul Fiocca award winner.

    http://www.victoriancent.com
  • pruebaspruebas Posts: 4,582 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @bosox said:
    I don't have it, but here it is. Puddester is a Canadian. I have met him. Worked in their foreign service.

    https://brooklyngallery.com/0252-tm170.html

    Thanks! I haven't purchased from them in years!

  • numismagramnumismagram Posts: 148 ✭✭✭

    I have the reference, but it isn't listed—at least not in volume 1 from 2002. An earlier version was printed in 1987, and he recently released a volume 2, part 3, but I don't think that it's from that. It's strange, as his numbering is generally based upon the year of the medal, so an 1892 medal would be 892.X. 990 would convey 1990, so there's either an error in the attribution or a completely different system that is not utilized in 2002's volume 1.

    Jeremy Bostwick

    For exceptional works of medallic art, check out our current inventory at Numismagram!

  • carabonnaircarabonnair Posts: 1,423 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @numismagram said:
    I have the reference, but it isn't listed—at least not in volume 1 from 2002. An earlier version was printed in 1987,

    A similar lot here lists as 990.1 from the 1987 edition.

  • numismagramnumismagram Posts: 148 ✭✭✭

    That would explain it then, @carabonnair. For whatever reason, it wasn't included in 2002's volume 1; also confusing that his numbering convention appears to have changed, as 990 in the 1987 edition couldn't refer to 1990. Strange. In any event, @pruebas would need to check the 1987 version for a possible reference to one without the reverse text.

    Jeremy Bostwick

    For exceptional works of medallic art, check out our current inventory at Numismagram!

  • pruebaspruebas Posts: 4,582 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Thanks @numismagram. That’s getting me closer. Once the ANS opens to the public, maybe I’ll stop in the library.

    @carabonnair thanks for that citation. Funny how they say “very rare” but it only sold for 8000 Rupees plus BP (US$135 +/-). I always thought the normal version was fairly common.

Sign In or Register to comment.