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).
Numismatic author & owner of the Uncommon Cents collections. 2011 Fred Bowman award winner, 2020 J. Douglas Ferguson award winner, & 2022 Paul Fiocca award winner.
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!
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!
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.
Comments
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.
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
http://www.victoriancent.com
Thanks! I haven't purchased from them in years!
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!
A similar lot here lists as 990.1 from the 1987 edition.
Pacific Northwest Numismatic Association
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!
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.