There will be an interesting coin on upcoming Triton X sale. It is listed as 1786/5 gold 2 Rubles:

http://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=97684

In description it is said that "...2 Roubles ... dated 1786/5....Bitkin -; Uzdenikov -; Friedberg 134; KM -; UBS 53, lot 2027. Good VF, polished. Extremely rare; only the second example to appear at auction".

This date is NOT listed in Bitkin, Uzdenikov and listed as "RARE" with no price in Konros. The date that is well known and relatively common is 1785.

Any suggestions if this is a real overdate 1786/5 or just some made up rarity?


WCO

There is an article in JRNS about this type of coin. I do not have the issue at hand and I do not remember the number, maybe somebody will give better reference.

Interesting - it does seem 6/5! Thanks for the link.

The 1786/5 two roubles was covered in RNS Journal 79 (winter 2004–2005), pages 65–70. It was originally published by Chaudoir in 1837 but later writers (including Schubert and the Grand Duke) denied its existence. It was rediscovered by dealer M. Louis (Mark) Teller in the 1980s.

It is definitely an overdate and the illustrations in Journal 79 show this very clearly.

The statement in Triton X that it is only the second piece to appear at auction is not quite correct as there have been others. (One is currently in a Jean Elsen sale, marked 1785 by mistake.) The grading services have been labelling the 1786/5 pieces for over a year. One of the NGC slabs showed up on Molotok a few months ago, for example.

The 1786 is rarer than the 1785 but not by much. Of the 29 specimens seen for both dates, 16 are 1785 and 13 are 1786.

RWJ

RWJ, Thank you for the info. I saw this kind several times too. Does not deserve extremely rare status in Konros catalogue, that's obvious. Just a slight premium over 1785 pieces would be more appropriate. But should it be in catalogues at all as independed date 1786/5 - I do not know. The story why this piece was denied to be a year 1786/5 by Grand Duke & Co. is of my interest, I do not have any info about it. It is a modern tendency to "discover rarities" among common coins. May be this is the case?

WCO

WCO: no consistency in your postings (original and after RWJ's reply....

I believe this is just a 1785 coin. If we want to see 1786 here we need to be really creative

LC, what consistency you are referring to?

WCO

Apparently it was denied by F.F. Schubert and the Grand Duke on the basis of the illustration (Plate 37, 3) appearing in Chaudoir. The 1786 two roubles was in the Krug collection but Chaudoir had not actually seen the coin and assumed that it was a normal date. The engraver employed by Chaudoir used a regular 1785 coin but changed the date to 1786; the '6' is entirely different from the real 1786/5, however.

I do not have the current Conros catalogue but their 2003 edition does not list the 1786 two roubles.

RWJ

Blaming Grand Duke who had all resources in the country and collected the finest and most completed collection of Russian coins ever that he had never seen a relatively common coin but only its illustrations in Chaudoir is at least strange. Even though he has a remark about that F.F. Schubert article (#730) as it seems for me he saw numerous examples of the coin and wrote (translating from Russian): "Two Ruble coin of 1786 does not exist; found are coins where number "5" looks similar to number "6". I attached a picture of Grand Duke's remark. And I looked at Grand Duke's plate 2 Rubles coin of 1785. Not sure completely (due to small size of picture), but it looks for me that the coin listed under 1785 in reality is this 1786/5 coin in question.

1786 coin is listed in 2004 Konros edition, not as overdate though.

WCO

The problem is perhaps a bit more complicated than it seems. Pre-1917 Russian numismatists of course understood overdates but did not pay a great deal of attention to them. In their work covering 1801–1904 Giel & Ilyin put an asterisk (*) besides a listing where some special difference was known (such as an overdate, but also including overmintmaster initials, etc.) but nothing further. In the work covering 1725–1801, however, Ilyin & Tolstoy simply ignored overdates, probably due to a lack of time and the large number of overdates to be found.

Although much of the yeoman work on the corpus volumes was done by others (e.g. Christian Giel) the Grand Duke put his name on the finished product and must bear responsibility for mistakes. However, in all fairness, errors in the corpus volumes are few and far between and the work must stand as one of the most outstanding achievements of pre-World War I numismatics for all countries.

The Chaudoir illustrations are well known for their accuracy and the fact that the overdate 1786 pieces did not match the 1837 drawing must have been a serious consideration in Giel’s decision to exclude the 1786/5 coinage from the corpus.

RWJ

Dear RWJ, thank you for your time and answers.

Somewhere in "Staraya Moneta" magazine published in St. Petersburg in early 1900s is an article study of Russian Rubles of early to middle 19-th century. For some dates there described over 100 variations up to smallest details in leaves, berries, all overdates, overmintmasters, etc. so I assume that at that time numismatists paid enough attention to overdates (and details overall). It was also because many coins were relatively cheap and available for study and comparisons.

I do not know what can support the statement that Giel, Grand Duke himself or whoever wrote that particular statement (that 1786 coin does not exist) for Grand Duke's book had never seen that 1786/5 coin. This seems very unlikely to me. And I do not know why you think that the statement in Grand Duke's book is a mistake?

It does seem to be a complicated issue, there is no straight answer to weather 1786/5 coin exists or that is just how last digit of 1785 coin looks. Opinions differ as I see, you state that it exists, LC (for example) states that it's just 1785 coin (see his statement above) and I do not know what is true and what is not.

I tried to dig somewhat into the books that I have but there is no straight answers, in fact most books deny existence of such a coin.

WCO

Again, I'm almost positive that 1786/5 is just an example of a mechanical problem. I had a chance to personnaly inspect such a coin (just 1, though) and it was clearly visible that there was no visible layer of metal in that digit (that would indicate an overstrike) and the whole digit looked like there was an extra amount of metal plugged onto it...
Again, this is my personal opinion only.

LC, thanks for your opinion. I do not actually quite understand what you are trying to say. Are you saying that there is no any purposeful alteration, i.e. there is no re-engraving of digit "6" over "5" made at the mint on purpose? Then what we see is what kind of "mechanical problem": die break, die flaw, accidental cut over digit "5" with instrument when cleaning of filled die or something else?

Cut over digit "5" could look like on the picture, but chances are very small.

WCO

The drawing shown by WCO is correct and exactly what happened in this case. I furnished high-quality photographs of the date to the foremost expert in the U.S. on early minting and die technology, Craig Sholley, and he agreed that it is an overdate – without question. All coins are from the same pair of dies for 1786 and others, including Mark Teller, have seen such coins and said that they were overdates. Moreover, Phillip Krug, who owned the original discovery specimen of the early 1800s, considered it to be 1786. NGC also agrees since they are now slabbing specimens with the appropriate marking; one would think that the NGC experts are aware of what an overdate is like.

It is also known that the figure '5' was recut as a '6' on numerous occasions at Russian mints. The way in which the 1785 became 1786 is, however, perfectly normal for the 18th century overdates, even if crudely done.

I have the 1910–1912 Staraya Moneta issues complete and am aware of the work done by K. Kocheregin, who lived in Helsinki, on 19th century rouble varieties, including overdates. Kocheregin was something of a trailblazer, however. Had the Revolution not intervened there is little doubt that his pioneering work would have been expanded to other denominations.

The statement that Giel was responsible for the corpus discussion is based on remarks by Randolph Zander in his Dictionary entry about Giel.

RWJ

Thank you, RWJ