Chinese Coins Help

Hi All,
I was wondering if anyone can provide any info on these Chinese "coins" i have. I want to know if these are replicas or originals. I bought these at a garage sale for $5 total so I figured its worth the risk. Since I do not know anything about Chinese coinage I figured I would reach out for help.
(images below)


Thanks in advance
Aaron

Your coins are very old and so presumably fake.
Anyway, it would be a pleasure to identify 'em with a picture of each face.

Thanks. Here you go. I scanned just a few of them to get started. I numbered each one for the side 1 scan. Side 2 scan coins are in same spot.

Side 1:


Side 2:


Thanks in advance. Any help is appreciated. FYI i will be unavailable to view this forum for the next 48 hrs but I cannot wait to read replies upon my return.

Aaron

Pay honour to whom honour is due and begin this Journey to the past by the oldest
1- Ming knife (400-220 BC)
2- Flat Handlled Spade Money type Arched Foor spades (400-300 BC)
These two coins are anecdotal, they are in this collection only to retrace the coinage history of China and the form and the engraved characters are more or less resembling the ancestral pieces. The Ming knife gets a too pronounced break between the handle and the blade and the shape and hole of the Arched Foam spade are not correct. The genuine ones set in muséums

Now with Nb#3 we jump to the other end of the time chain with a coin from Puyi (also known as the "Last emperor" of the Qing dynasty), on the reverse face you can see that the mint is Boo-chiowan (Board of Revenue, Beijing), and with the protruding head of Boo, it's the North Branch.
The reference book for China coins is the Hartill with a very detailled drawing of each coin with the correct width of the edges and all the small details necessary for a complete identification.

Your coin is the number DH#22.1516 and is apparently genuine

Ok now it's late, lets continue tomorrow

Thanks for starting to identify. Going offline shortly for 48hrs. Can wait to see the rest. Do you have any idea if these are original or replica?

For the Nb#4 we get in another era the North Song Dynasty whith the emperor Hui-Zong, 8th emp. (1100-1126) who was painter and an art promoter.
4th era of Huizong (1111-1118), Zheng-He Tong-Bao - Li Script - DH# 16.441
The authenticity of Chinese coins older than a millennium is hardly decreed just by looking to a scan. In any case, I can not.

The Nb#5 is from another dynasty : the Ten Kingdoms (907-960)
Former Shu Kingdom (907-925)
Wang Jian (907-918)
Yong Ping Yuan Bao c/wise - DH# 15.30
You might add this coin that is not yet referenced on Numista Under:
China - Empire - The Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms (907-960)

The #6 is not from China but from Annam, Nguyễn dynasty, Nguyễn Phúc Vĩnh San, the puppet emperor of the French who enthroned him at the age of 7
Duy Tan Thong Bao (1907-1916)

With the #7, get back to the founder and first emperor of the Song dynasty in China : Emperor Taizu of Song ( 927–976) who reigned from 960 until his death in 976.
Song Yuan Tong Bao, small characters with dot on reverse : DH# 16.1d-g

The #8 is from emperor Shenzong of Song (°1048 +1085), who the sixth emperor of the Song dynasty and reigned from 1067 until his death on 1085. Second era "Yuanfeng" (1078–1085).
But in fact Japan was not miniting coins from 960 up to the 17th century, chinese coins were extensively used as currency, so this coin is actually a Japanese copy of the Northern Song:
Yuan Feng tong bao c/wise, large Tong, Li script DH# 16.234.
We can recognize the square head of Feng, not with three strokes.
1 Mon Yuanfeng; regular script; Nagasaki Trade Coinage
The reference is DH# 25.62, this coin is relatively common.

#9 and #10 look very strange perhaps temple coi ns or charms ?

The #11 is from the Qing dynasty Tongzhi, but the reverse should not be plain wihout the mint

#12 is from the Qing dynasty, emperor Xuan Zong (1821-1850)
Dao Guang tong bao - mint Aksu, Xinjiang, Square head tong
DH#22.652 struck between 1821-1828
This coin is not yet in the Numista database.

And, to finish with the #13, back to Yuanfeng, 2nd era of Shenzong (1078-1085), the 6th emperor of the Song Dynasty from 1067 to 1085, that we already met for the #8.
Now it's written in Running script

So lets other collegues clarify these remaining coins
coins #9

coin #10

Why a plain reverse for coin #11 ?

and I've got a trouble with the reverse of coin #6

They are 'replicas' of old coins.
Chinese are master in 'aging' coins.
Here is a link to a book about them (not the most accurate):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/c6cidiqnu6hpsu4/Catalogue_Chinese_Coins_7thcBC-621AD.pdf?dl=0

Last one is a 10 wen from Annam

The Tongzhi cash is really hard to determine, but doesn't seem like a fake; rather, an amulet to commemorate the emperor?

The next looks like a Fuchang cash, which, like all Tartar dynasty cash, are not common. You should get this one checked.

Last one says "Chongqing tongbao" so probably a Vietnamese coin

Thanks for your help

coin #10 - The Tatar Dynsties, State of Qi (1130-37) - Liu Yu
Fu Chang Yuan Bao c/wise - DH# 18.75

Coin #9 - The Tatar Dynsties, Jin dynasty (1115–1234) - Prince Shào of Wèi (1208–1213), second era : Chóngqìng (1212–1213)
I didn't find any reference in the Hartill

As a major fact Aaron, you're Lucky cause KennyG didn't qualify your collection as "a bunch of fakes".
It does not mean that they are genuine, but believe me ... it is very auspicious

Citation: "Frenchlover"​As a major fact Aaron, you're Lucky cause KennyG didn't qualify your collection as "a bunch of fakes".
​It does not mean that they are genuine, but believe me ... it is very auspicious
​
​

​Indeed, Kenny is the expert here!

Now, the crucial point.
Are these coins genuine ?

PetrusAscanus is categorical, arguing that Chinese know very well how to age coins, KennyG does not see any major problem that would disqualify them right away, and I am not a specialist: qualifiers such as "weel made Manchu characters" plunge me into an abyss of perplexity.
So taken individually, these coins do not raise any major problem. Do not consider the price of the lot. It has no importance. It's just a matter of luck, knowledge and negotiation. You might have bought you lot $1000, the question of authenticity would be the same.
Let us act rather as an archaeologist and study the context.

We get a set of coins, including a frying pan that we didn't study yet, obviously intended for tourists since it is written in English. It is even "printed" in English which means that there must be other sets of the same type with Chinese coins covering two millennia!
There, it spoils!
In fact, even if cash were produced with countless copies, they have certainly been recast during the changes of regime or dynasty. So to collect such a set covering two millennia, with Japan, China and Annam coins, it would take a lot of time to a collector and so, coins might be presented in a more valued way. Could we seriously believe that coins older more than a millennium are easily found in China or in any other part of the world! And this presentation of coins in a sausage way is perhaps fun, but not really worthy of a collector!
Let's look in detail at coins on the cardbord that have not yet been studied, there are very old coins from the Han period for exemple and one coin of the Qing Dynasty is presented on its reverse! it's ridiculous ...
A look at the whole lot gives the impression of coins certainly old but all more or less in very good condition which is absolutely not the case for genuine coins. How could these coins that are separated of more than a millennium be more or less similar? Not the least bit of verdigris.
Finally, at least coin # 11 of the Qing Dynasty is highly questionable not to mention the spade and knife moneys and the frying pan.
In science, a single counterexample ruins a theory, lets bet that on money collection, it's the same. And if we consider that some of these coins were cast only for the purpose of being part of this lot, why bother to put other genuine coins there?
In conclusion, I think it's a bunch of fakes, until proven otherwise ...
And yet it is a very beautiful lot for a collector. On my opinion, I bet that 95% of chinese coins older than a millennium on sale on ebay are fakes (but it is a very personal opinion) and collectors of Chinese coins are not very picky about the authenticity of coins They buy as long as coins look old.

And that does not prevent you from reselling at good price this lot on ebay, obviously removing the whole context. One coin per week starting at $ 20 "China Empire old coin undetermined" specifying that you can not certify that it is genuine but that it comes from the collection of your grandfather who lived in Schanghai during the Roaring Twenties and ... soon $ 500 in your wallet.
I'm joking of course

I agree Frenchlover!
I am always cautious about chinese coins, because I have seen a lot of them with 'white' gypsum.
They almost all were 'replicas'.
But it is Always nice to know what they are.
Here are some of the 'coins' I have:

In an another hand, we cannot consider all Qing dynasty coins as fake .
Like on your picture there is a typical 1 Cash Guangxu machine struck

First of all, please take my words with a grain of salt. I only hop on the forums when I see Chinese cash.

There are some coins in here that are alarming based on two factors: composition and calligraphy. More specifically, coins 7, 9, 11, and 12 have irregular compositions, especially 7 and 9, since most coins during this era were made with a higher copper content, while Qing dynasty coins used a more brassy composition. 4 looks the "most fake" of all the coins here, and of course the spade coins are modern replicas, not to mention the rims are off-center.

So what isn't wrong with the other coins? 3 and 13 have very non-amateurish writing, and the metal composition looks appropriate (although Song and Qing dynasties are not commonly faked). Even 10, the Tartar coin, looks very similar to 11th century cash coinage, but being a very uncommon coin, you should get it checked, let alone the set being bought on the street (the reverse may have been plain for the era). Number 6 is the "most real", being a relatively common Vietnamese cash coin from two centuries ago.

For the reasons that Frenchlover mentions, there is always uncertainty with Chinese cast coinage, even with common Qing dynasty coins where coins were issued in the billions. But we can quickly conclude that the spade and knife "coins" are fakes, like most coins of this type.

Wow. A lot of useful and we'll explained information was provided here. Difficult to digest it all. From what I understood from the seller is that the card with all the "round" coins was acquired separately from the ones with the spade and knife type cards. I suspected that the knife, pan and spade type coins are replicas. However I thought some of the round coins from the single card was authentic. Again I purchased all these at a garage/yard sale and the seller did not seem to know anything or was possibly not interested in explaining since it was a moving sale where they had to vacate property due to foreclosing their mortgage. But I do thank ALL of you very much for all your time especially French Lover for getting a conversation started and trying to identify.
should I even bother posting the remaining round coins for identification?
where would a good place be to identify the authenticity of Chinese coins?
thanks a million.
aaron

Citation: "PetrusAscanus"​They are 'replicas' of old coins.
​Chinese are master in 'aging' coins.
​Here is a link to a book about them (not the most accurate):
​https://www.dropbox.com/s/c6cidiqnu6hpsu4/Catalogue_Chinese_Coins_7thcBC-621AD.pdf?dl=0
​

​Thank you for this link.

FrenchLover,
This is the remaining from the card as discussed in PM:

14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25


26


27


I did my best to get clear images.... As for orientation thats another story .... So confusing....

Thanks in advance,
Aaron

A new dynasty for this #14 and #27 : Tang dynasty (618-907) - Emperor Su Zong (756-762)
qian yuan zhong bao (乾 元重宝) standard cash size (759-762) - DH# 14.114 - DH# 14.123
You choose your reverse



I'll be offline for a couple of days

All of these coins are fake. Calligraphy and composition, and the thickness is probably off as well... I'll take a look later in my books.

Also FrenchLover you are killing it! :)

Thanks, so from all the 27 coins posted which do you think are authentic?

15, 21, and 22 do NOT look authentic, mostly because of the crudely done calligraphy; I'll take a look later. There is always skepticism for Chinese cash, but composition is the factor most people don't realize has a large part in determining authenticity

Chinese coins have a brassier composition starting in the 16th century with a few exceptions. You can rule out a few coins that seem brassy before this era.

OK thanks. I guess just let me know which you think ARE authentic.... Im new to chinese coins

I'm waiting for the coffee to settle.

17 looks the least concerning. Coins of this era tend to be very thin. 25 also seems to have the appropriate wear and calligraphic style.

An aside about orientation: characters are written top-down, right-left. You might notice that coins like 24 (upside-down), where the characters have a top dash-stroke. The characters 大 and 寶 have outward "leg" strokes at the bottom.