I just picked up a 1854 rouble today at auction. Russian coins are not my specialty and I unfortunately have no specific literature. I purchased this to serve as a type. The coin was listed as a normal strike, but after bringing it home and looking at it closer it seems very proof-like in my eyes, at least how it reflects in the light. I could not capture it in photo, so I took a brief video clip as I turn it in light to see the reflection.

NOTE about the video: The video file is huge, but I left it such so that it will be as big on the screen as possible. Unfortunately my camera would not focus on the coin, so that is out of focus but you should be able to see what I mean about the reflection.


Video clip

Warning: File size is 22.1Mb

I indeed would give it a proof like apperance, but it's still too far away from being a proof.

Those who dread leeching Sisu's file can try this smaller file here which I made it to 4mb in WMV and removed the background noise.

http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?acti...C6BC76351747B08

It's not THAT bad I swear.

Congratulations on your purchase! From what I could see from the video, it is a very fine coin indeed.

Proof or prooflike -- this is something many people also have problems with. Sometimes it is impossible to tell, especially with older (pre-1900) coins. For example, in the last N.Y. Sale by Dmitry Markov, an 1854 rouble was advertised as "prooflike or possible proof" (lot #1477). Then there was a 1903 50 kopek coin (extremely rare, only 19 specimens were struck!) It is known that these were struck only in proof, yet the one advertised was designated "prooflike fields, uncirculated" (lot #1584). I had the opportunity to view the coins in Basel in Dec. 2005, and I would tend to agree that it wasn't really a proof, did I not know that it must be a proof because no business strikes were made! It was actually certified in an NGC slab, but the NGC grade didn't make it into the catalogue, and unfortunately I neglected to take note of it since I assumed it would be in the catalogue.

In the book by R.W. Julian he writes: "Collectors encounter prooflike silver coins, dating from 1844 through the early 1860s, that appear to be proofs but are not." This is because the striking techniques dramatically improved in 1844. If you look at lot #3944 of the recent UBS auction, there is an 1852 rouble advertised as proof. However, the estimate price was for an uncirculated or AU coin (it had some little scratches) since the estimate for a proof should have been much higher. I looked at this coin and decided to bid CHF 750 on it. I thought that if it is indeed a proof, it would go much higher anyway, but I wouldn't win it (I can't afford to buy old proof rouble coins, unfortunately ). And if it weren't a proof, I would win it at a lower price. Unfortunately, it went for CHF 900. Either someone got a real proof coin very cheaply, or else they drastically overpaid for a prooflike coin. I suppose we'll never know.

Thank you gx for your help in making the file a more managable size.

And thank you for the enlightening input bobh. The coin itself does not look proof as I understand proof in the modern sense. As I tilted it to examine it, the fields reflected light as a proof often does, thus my uncertainty. And when dealing with older coins that have been struck using different techniques and thus often have terms applied to them that would not be applicable for modern coinage, I am often at a loss when the coin in question is from an area that I am not intimately familiar with.

I took a quick photo and uploaded it onto Omnicoin




And as I am handicapped by using only Krause price catalogues as a guide, I am not sure whether I got a "deal" or overpaid. But if this grades at least an XF, then I got a great deal.

Sisu, a proof would look something like this: (I am VERY sure it's at least a proof, well a terribly mishandled proof)



And this should be a proof-like



I am more than sure that yours is proof-like, Sisu.

Ah, so the devices are not necessarily frosted, but also have the polished and reflective surfaces. Am I correct?

Btw. on the edge of my coin: is that text with the numerals and fractions giving the composition of the coin? or something else?

Tricky question there Sisu. I'll let the experts handle that.

Nevertheless, this is the edge question:

CEP. 83 1/3 ||POBbl 2. 3OL. 41 7/25 DOL.

would translate something to:
Sil(ver) 83 1/3 standard 2 zol(otniks), 41 7/25 par(ts),

Where the unit zolotniks is an ancient Russian way of measuring weights.
1 zol = 96 parts = 4.266g

Edited to add:

Congradulations Sisu! It's a nice coin! (Oh my, it's even getting harder to find nice ones )

I would give it at least an XF, and possibly AU but only after seeing the coin in hand (or larger images). There seems to be a rim ding visible from the obverse, or eagle side (I can never remember which is which) at 12 o'clock.

I paid about CHF 200 for mine almost a year ago: L I N K
On eBay, these roubles routinely go for even more than that in this condition. Krause has become fairly worthless as a price guide for Russian coins today -- in general, they are much too low.

Case in point: 1845-KB rouble auction on eBay

Disagree about using the year 1845. The year 1845, if not the mintmaster is quite significiant because the mintmaster "KB" only lasted for a couple of years or so, which makes it extremely difficult to find.

It looks at least XF to me.

As a general rule, Krause prices for nice Imperial Russian coins are a bad joke. I'd love to be able to buy a 1704 ruble in XF for $700-$900 or a Mourning Ruble in XF for $900 or a Peter III 10 Rubles in unc for only $3500 or a 1701 ducat in XF for less than $4000.

If you got it at the Krause catalog price (XF $120), then it's hard to see how you could possibly have gone wrong.

Although mintage numbers for this year are lower than most other years, it doesn't seem to be marked as particularly scarce in any of my references. But you could be right, just not because it's a rare mintmaster: there is no other mintmaster for 1845.

Grivna, it happens!

Two years ago, a dealer made a major OOPS! and went by Krause price, only to mark it up perhaps by 120% or something. Obviously his Russian coins were sold out like hotcakes and were gone in a day.

I made a terrible OOPS by not buying the 1859 XF commemorative ruble for 150USD The 1883 coronation ruble too were sold for around 100USD and the 1896 was about the same price... I ended up buying a Paul I ruble for VF- 30USD (yes, I'm not joking) and a massive 1.5ruble-10zlots XF- for 70USD.

1854 Ruble does not look as a Proof to me. May be Prooflike at best. Proof is a name of technology and not a measure of reflectivity of coins' fields. A Proof coin not necessarily has mirrored fields and frosted details. DMPL coin may be way more mirrorlike than a Proof.

Thank you, I am happy with it.

However, my edge text is not exactly the same as yours.
CEP.83 1/3 IIPOBbl 4 3OL. 82 14/25 DOLi

Yes, there is a small rim ding at that spot on the obverse. Also on the lower left hand side of the reverse there is a small discrepancy in the toning. Not sure if this is natural or has a previous owner done a small cleaning test.

obverse
reverse


Russian coins here are quite popular and they normally sell for above Krause values, that is why I was surprised to get this at about (perhaps just below) Krause.

Oh, there is also a small die crack at 4 o'clock through the "P" or R if you prefer.

Die cracks usually do not add or detract from a coin's grade or value. But I think they definitely add interest to a coin!

Looks like there was some attempt at cleaning at that spot on the reverse.

I messed up, I was looking a poltina But yes, that's what a ruble is supposed to be. (I don't even remember what rubles I have from that era)

This is strange ... admittedly, this coin has a lot of detail, but there are a few pretty bad scratches, bad discoloration on the reverse which looks like a blotched cleaning (or as if someone spilled acid dip on the coin and didn't notice until it was too late). There is also a big fingerprint at 1 o'clock on the obverse (over the eagle's head). I am certain that this coin doesn't look nearly as attractive in hand, mostly because it has been harshly cleaned and scratched.

Yet we have two or three newbies with less than 20 feedback frantically overbidding one another. It's already at over $250 with 5 days left in the auction. I will guess that at least one of them is a shill.

Bobh, I am sure people are bidding because of the two year type mintmaster. The last time I saw another dealer selling a similar coin, except it's poltina, it got sold pretty high because he DID advertise it as a 2 year type mintmaster.

Price has gone up to over $600 now with 4 hours left to go!

Is it just the mintmaster, or am I missing something here? I was expecting it to go for around $100 or maybe a little less.