Hi all!

Here is an interesting coin, which I belive to be a novodel no matter what:
http://www.thauctions.com/ItemDetail.asp?M...atID2=0&p=9
2 kopek 1831, Ekaterinburg Mint, Brekke 145 (Very Rare), Bitkin 505 (R3), prooflike, ex. O. P. Eklund Collection - extremely rare date,1831 overstruck on 1830

Here is another coin of the series which I have (see my picture). It is 1833 with the last 3 reengraved over 0. The coin on my picture is (to my mind) a novodel.

Now the question is :
Have anybody of you ever come across a wings down novodel with the date digits reengraved over 1830? Do you think there may be a small chance that both coins pictured in this post are original business strikes? Any idea WHY did they need to reengrave a date on NOVODEL???

Any theories will be welcome!

Wow Timofei, thanks for sharing the interesting link and nice 5k you got there!

That's a very interesting coin you got there and I'm puzzled as well. As the first year of the production of such eagle down copper coins is in 1830 - they are supposely scarce. I don't see what good it is to strike it in 1833, unless a collector specifically requested such coin for let's say the birth of himself years later, probably after 1850s. I really would like to know what St. Petersburg's policy was at that time with regards to collectors - did St. Petersburg take any kind of request as long as they get handsomely paid in black money? Or was it an open market?

You see, qx, if it was a regular nice and clean novodel I would not pay much attention to it - they used to make these series up to 1870-s, when for the last time in Ekaterinburg the full yearly sets were prepared for Paris exhibition. But why and when they reengraved 30 to 33 - that is a mystery to me, and now I see that there is another coin with 1830 reengraved to a later date.

Is there any kind of special event that occured in Russia during 1833? Sorry, I don't know too much about Russian history except major ones If it's 1834 - I would have given some kind of guess, but 1833... I just don't know why.

Good day everyone.

Both coins are definite Novodels. While there may be many reasons to make 1831/0 Novodel 2 Kopecks I am not sure that shown 5 Kopecks piece is 1833/0. I defenetely see something on that 5 Kopecks, but what I see does not look as underlying "zero" to me. 2 Kopecks Novodel is not that rare.

WCO

I think this is a Novodel. I personally have no doubt. A couple of real 1831 em-fx that I know of do not show an overdate. (Tolstoy, Duplicates) Also, the absolute rarity of the coin does not allow for multiple dies.

What do you think of the 1830 em-fx 10 kopek from the same auction? I do not like the "3" in the date. Does not really match the specimens I know.

A coin in this condition should always bring the question of fake\original especially when it is a rare coin. I do not like the date at all. It is a known fact that sometimes the letters or digits are soldered to the coin; in this shape it is impossible to judge anything definite.

A coin in this condition should always bring the question of fake\original especially when it is a rare coin. I do not like the date at all. It is a known fact that sometimes the letters or digits are soldered to the coin; in this shape it is impossible to judge anything definite.

It was common practice to redate dies by punching in a new figure. In this case the figure 0 was changed to a figure 1, creating the overdate 1831/0. Although it is possible that this is a novodel it has to be considered that the piece is in fact a specimen strike from 1831. Perhaps there was a request from a local collector with influence and dies for this denomination had not yet been prepared for 1831; the creation of an overdate would then be a normal thing to do.

It might also have been the case that there was a small trial coinage of this denomination in 1831 and the only obverse die then on hand (dated 1830) was hurriedly redated for the test.

As a last thought, it is possible that regular coinage on the new standard was considered for late 1830 and dies prepared but for whatever reason did not occur. This would have left dies of 1830 on hand for redating and use in 1831.

RWJ

This may be a good explanation for 1830\1 but what is the reason for reengraving 1830 to 1833 on a novodel coin?

Both things (Specimen strike of 1831 and trial coinage of 1831) are very unlikely. 1831/0 coin is a definite Novodel and patterns at that time were bronzed Proofs only. Since both 1830 and 1831 coins had letters "EM-FX" it was reasonable to "overdate" 1830 coin to a new date 1831 to satisfy demand from collectors for rare 1831 coin years later, when it was already known that 1831 coin is extremely rare.

WCO

I have looked at the photograph carefully and am not convinced that it is 1833/0. My first guess is that the final figure 3 is over a mispunched (error figure) numeral, perhaps a 3 or 2. Sometimes the engraver picked up the wrong punch or punched the numeral too far from the rest of the date.

It was normal practice at Ekaterinburg to prepare dies in advance, missing the last numeral. For example, an obverse die might be prepared in October 1832 but with uncertainty as to whether it would be used in 1832 or 1833. The last digit was then added when it was certain when the die would be used. This was common practice through 1867 for copper.

This practice, of adding the last digit well after the rest of the die had been completed, often resulted in mismatched numerals or numerals not in line with the rest of the date.

RWJ

I just wanted to add that this practice was extremely popular in Russian coinage of 1830s and 1840s.

If you compare the coin at issue to GM specimen -- it is close, but not identical. Ribbons differ a little. But, do not forget that some denominations of 1830 spb series can only be distinguished as original or Novodel by those ribbons. (5 kop piece for example) Thus, I still believe it is a novodel. The coin is so rare if it is original that I do not believe in two sets of dies.

Even if Novodel -- who can remember the last time it appeared? I certainly cannot. Thus, even if Novodel, it is also very rare. I would be very interested in purchasing such Novodel for a reasonable price.

Which is about $6,000 ??? :-)

I guess much less than that.

WCO

Here are the pictures of the last digit on 1833 5 kopeck novodel, taken with 30x and 15x magnification. I think that only '0' could leave such a mark. Any ideas?

Picture #2

My only question is this - if it is in fact a 0, is not it too far to the right?

As Mr.Julian pointed out - last digit was punched later after die preparation. Below is the example of 3 different coins of 31 and 33 - note that the last digit is always stands separately and could be above, below closer etc. Same applies to the dot after the date. So I would not be surprised if 0 is far away.

I think it's unrealistic to debate upon theories without a proper base. What is more important is to focus on what is really under the three before making up conjectures.

I believe it's almost undeniable that there is a curve on the right of the figure 3. And on the left, there seems to be another curve right under the tip of the top side of the number three. What other numbers can it be? 0 or 2 I say.

IT'S TIME TO VOTE , EVERYONE!

Looked some more on better pictures, still not sure though what digit was underlying. Not convinced it is a "zero".


WCO

Hi friends, I refer to the 2kop1831/0. The complete date seems to have been revised, certainly the 3 and the 8. And the X of the mintmaster initials is unlike any other X. Does anyone have an idea about that?

http://www.thauctions.com/ItemDetail.asp?M...atID2=0&p=9 <br>

Thanks, regards, Sigi

Sigi, link not found

This photograph is much better than the first one and it now does appear that it is 1833/0. The only explanation I can think of at present is that regular coinage was planned in 1830 for this design but was aborted for unknown reasons, the dies later being redated for use.

It is perhaps worth noting that poltinas of 1832 and 1833 are known as overdates (1832/1 and 1833/1) but there is no known poltina of 1831 with this reverse.

RWJ

The most interesting question, to me that is, is which dies were overdated --the original dies or novodel dies? The more likely response is the Novodel dies. If that is correct, then there is a way to distinguish the Novodels of 1830 em-fx from the originals. I do not believe that any catalog lists the distinguishing features.

I forgot to mention the important point about 5 kop 1833\0 (it is difficult to photograph): the field\surface of the coin disk is not exactly flat like in regular business-strike coins and it is proof-like. The surface shows very very slight waves which may confirm that rusty dies, prepared in 1830 could be polished\refurbished at a later date (1833). The strike is in collar.

You are right, no catalog lists the differences. A picture of 1830 EM novodel would be a great help in this matter - we could compare 2 novodel dies - 1830 and 1833 - and the original coins. Unfortunately I do not have in my collection 1830 EM (neither novodel nor original).

I have an original 1830 em fx (I think it is an original due to its condition). The condition, for which I apologize, will not allow for detailed comparison. The date has not been tampered with, which wasverified under x80 magnification:

The coin on your picture shows no differences. In general I found that on many coins even of the same mint and date there are 3 major items: form of precious stones on the main crown, size of Ф and Х, and (funny!) the type of the ground under St.George.

I believe that there are at least 3 differences. The most major one is "X" in FX.

This is the completion of my thought from yestarday:

The most obvious differences are:

1. "X" in FX which looks more like a deformed "K"

2. shape and position of numerals "8" and "3" in the date

3. Feathers of left wing

Now, I do not believe that there could be more than 1 original die. The total mintage was very low. There were a number of instances, however, when the Novodels were produced on Yekaterinburg Mint. There were at least 2 or 3 instances when EM prepared a complete date set of all of its coinage production. (I do not remember the source of this information -- it was an article about Novovdels) Most dies had to be newly made and then destroyed. These instances were orders that were not related to Trade fair of 1870. I am not completely certain that 1830 EM-FX Novodels were produced in 1870 at all. The existence of 1830 EM actually produced for 1870 Fair negates the idea that 1830 em-fx were also produced.

Notwithstanding the above, it is likely that there is a number of different novodels of this series. All those instances took place much later than 1830. It would not be very probable for the novodel to circulate so much. It appears that there is a possibility that we can tell at least one of the novodels from original now.

The source of info you mentioned is Spassky. Exactly this article on novodels says that:
- 1840 official Ministry order to Ekaterinburg for reproduction of complete yearly sets from 1757 to 1840 on new dies. In particular, each year must have incuded all types (even if certain types were not coined at all within a particular year). All dies were supposed to be freshly made for each nominal and for each year. The dies were destroyed afterwards
- 1856 official Ministry order to Ekaterinburg for reproduction of complete yearly sets from 1726 to 1856. In particular, each year must have incuded all types (even if certain types were not coined at all within a particular year). All dies were supposed to be freshly made and be kept afterwards. 1 collection of 1740 coins was made.
- 1870 order for exhibition. The set of 1856 dies was used. It was 4 collections actually and Spassky said that these exact 1856 dies were used for private orders.

When I compared 1833\0 novodel, 1831 original coin, 1833 original coin and your picture I took measurements of ФХ letters (I do not know what is the practical use of that, not a big waste of time though ) so here is a table. Finally I do not really know for certain, but under microscope the shape (not position) of 183X and letters ФХ could be also explained by wear, circulation damage, production defects and not by the engraver's exact design. I do not know how to consider the shape of X, the letter is so tiny so it could just be anything.

As I said in the beginning -- the condition of my coin will not allow for a detailed comparison. It would be nice to get a Proof original with certification by Shiryakov. Then it would be very easy. But, such easy way is not always available in numismatics when you want to compare dies (outside of a museum) of coins of which under 20 peices are known to exist.

Interesting:

Novodel striking at Ekaterinburg Mint:

1) 1840 -- Novodel date set from 1757 through 1840. ( all dies destroyed thereafter)

2) 1856 -- Novodel date set from 1726 -- 1856 ( dies were not destroyed thereafter)

3) 1870 (I stand corrected) -- 4 Date sets (not clear what dates)

Thus, we have at least 2 different novodel dies for 1830 as well as 1831. Now, this information makes this 1830 Novodel striking way more rare than the original at 6 total specimens. However, I wonder if there is any information about private orders. That could change the picture...

All in all, an interesting coin to have. I wonder what it brings.