First of all, I know nothing about Nicholas II period. Received this yesterday. Bought it as a lead fake for a pittance (mail bid). However, the coin is not made out of lead -- it is zinc. Weighs 8.1 g. Diameter and thickness is just like of a regular 1899 poltina. Edge is plain. Looks and feels stamped, not cast. No sign of silver plating. Condition is awful -- probably out of the ground. Surfaces look very aged -- not acid treated, though... Except for the last digit in the date, which looks funny, I could not detect any die variance.

As far as I know, all counterfeits of that period were silver plated and had some imitation of edge inscription. This one does not seem to have been made to imitate the real coin.

What do you think, -- a die trial?

That in an interesting "coin" you got there BKB. For such "high" levels of counterfeiting, I am pretty confused of it's purposes. Let's hope it's a trial coin

Tane, I remember you had a counterfeit Nicholai II coin in your collection. Can you share that story if you can?

There is a rare variety of 1899 poltina with a smooth edge (Uzdenikov 2102). However, the design of Nicholas II is not good -- look at the base of the neck and compare it with real coins.

There are some uniface lead patterns in the Smithsonian, but these are of later date. Also, there is a pattern with small head from 1895 in the Smithsonian (Julian 867) but it has an edge inscription with mintmaster Apollon Grasgov.

Bobh, what are the coins in lead patterns in Smithsonian, if you happen to know?

Oops ... these are in the Hermitage in St. Petersburg (Ilyin collection). I got this mixed up with the 1895 pattern, I suppose ... sorry for the confusion!

The Julian catalogue says: "... from about 1905 of two varieties of an unadopted obverse; both have smaller heads than the regular issue."

One comes across contemporary counterfeits of the Nicholas II period but these are normally of the subsidiary silver. Most of them seem to have been die-struck in copper and then silver-plated. There is no particular reason why the forgers could not have gone after larger coins as well.

A modern provenance is unfortunately also possible. Many of the current forged pieces seen on eBay have been deliberately mishandled in order to look old.

RWJ

Thank you. All those are possible of course. However, a contemporary counterfeit would be silverplated and would be edged. THis one is not.

As to a current forgery, I have handled some zinc and aluminum coins before. This one, in my opinion, shows signs of aging. It is just a feeling, but it is supported by certain oxidation.

Mr. Julian: did you ever come across any contemporary counterfeit of NII period that was not edged? I never thought those existed.

Here it is compared to 1899 50 kop. Sorry for condition -- I do not collect these coins and I only have a couple by accident. The base of the neck is identical. The front of the neck is a bit different, but that is because the zinc one is defaced in that area by a contact mark.

To me, it looks like the angle between the neck and the beard is different. Also, the nose is different (IMHO).

No. The only pieces that I have actually handled are subsidiary silver and these had reeded edges.

RWJ

Same here. I also saw 3 counterfeit roubles of N II. All were silvered. All were edged. 2 were copper and one was cast in white metal. That is why I think this specimen is not a contemporary counterfeit. Too bad it is in such awful condition. It makes die comparison very hard. Especialy, if the material used for comparison is also in awful condition.