Date errors in some Palembang coins [Risolto]

Some of the page has date errors which I'm not sure how to change. Are these can only be changed by referees?

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces131220.html
The converted range of that date (622-1789) is too broad. 622 is not needed and I can't tell where that year came from. According the references on the page, only 1789 AD suffice, corresponding to the date 1203 AH inscribed on the coin.

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces85525.html
The coin in fact has an inscribed date, 1193 AH, though often distorted. ND can all be changed to 1993 AH (1779 AD)

For the first coin the 622 came from the ? year line. It's a known bug discussed here: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic115492.html

It seems the first piece is already edited, but the second piece https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces85525.html still have error date.

Instead of ND (1193), it should be 1193 (1779). As I'm to understand it, the year in parenthesis is supposed to be the production year as oppose to the inscribed year outside of parenthesis. I admit that I filled out the [ ]-[ ] boxes with 1193 previously because I was confused on where to put them, as the grey [ ] box cannot be filled at my end. Is the inscribed year suppose to be only handled by referee?

Known bug coming from the conversion tool when date is ND.

Coins on the other post with same problem are kept as is on purpose, first need to find a solution so the problem is cleared and not just "patched" temporarily.

But the Palembang coin in question do in fact have a date. So instead of ND it could be all changed into 1193, isn't it?

For the first one, correction request has been sent to the referee.

For the 2nd one, you can directly submit requests to change the dates from ND to 1193. Or PM the referee to check with him to him in batch.

Cita: "pejounet"​For the 2nd one, you can directly submit requests to change the dates from ND to 1193. Or PM the referee to check with him to him in batch.

​When you're doing that add the Islamic (Hijri) calendar to give the AD date.

The second request here is done.

Cita: "Sulfur"​The second request here is done.

​Can you please also add SOLVED to the header, so we don't need to open the topic to find out it's solved?

Cita: "Sulfur"​The second request here is done.

Thank you very much
​

Cita: "Sjoelund"​

Cita: "Sulfur"​The second request here is done.

​​Can you please also add SOLVED to the header, so we don't need to open the topic to find out it's solved?

​When a ticket is marked as done, it's written in the blue header at top, and within the thread itself and on the main forum there is a tick before the title...so no need to open the thread to know it's solved: tick=solved, cross=rejected.

OK, understood.

Why is the date 1203 and not 1253? 1203 should be written as 12.3 if Islamic or am I wrong on that?

 I think you are right.  

On lower part of obverse is ۱۲۵۳  [1253[ 

so is not ۱۲۰۳  [1203] 

then either the picture or lettering is wrong. 

 Hopefully referee will see this and decide. Thanks! 

N#131220 

For what it's worth

WhatsCoinOn

Why is the date 1203 and not 1253? 1203 should be written as 12.3 if Islamic or am I wrong on that?

1253 corresponds to 1837-1838 in the Gregorian calender. This surpasses not only the reign of Muhammad Bahauddin, but also the existance of the Sultanate of Palembang.

 

Normally, you would be correct with the Islamic dating; however, the “O” in these dates are actually just zeros. I don't remember why they did things differently here (it's been a while since I researched these types), but they did.  x)

 OK - thanks. :) 

Sulfur

WhatsCoinOn

Why is the date 1203 and not 1253? 1203 should be written as 12.3 if Islamic or am I wrong on that?

1253 corresponds to 1837-1838 in the Gregorian calender. This surpasses not only the reign of Muhammad Bahauddin, but also the existance of the Sultanate of Palembang.

 

Normally, you would be correct with the Islamic dating; however, the “O” in these dates are actually just zeros. I don't remember why they did things differently here (it's been a while since I researched these types), but they did.  x)

Very interesting indeed. Thx a bunch