Interesting Theory about overdates

One of well known Russian authors of numismatic literature recently wrote exactly the following:

"...на Санкт-Петербургском монетном дворе в обязательном порядке соблюдалось соответствие даты, проставляемой на чеканившихся монетах, дате календарной, т.е. использование в наступившем году штемпелей с устаревшей датировкой, как правило, не допускалось. Также не допускалось использование штемпелей, на которых проставлены устаревшие инициалы минцмейстера. Исключением из этого правила является чеканка в начале 1832 года монет штемпелями предыдущего, 1831 года (и типа!), что объясняется отсутствием штемпелей нового образца в этот период. В то же время на Варшавском монетном дворе, возможно, допускалось использование штемпелей с устаревшей датировкой, поскольку перегравировки даты на монетах варшавской чеканки единичны и не носят систематического характера".

Translation

"... on St. Petersburg mint it was mandatory that date listed on a coin was the same as current calendar year, i.e. usage of dies with old date in a new year was almost always prohibited. Also was prohibited usage of dies with outdated mintmaster's initials. Exception is only mintage of coins at the beginning of 1832 bearing date (and type of) 1831, and it may be explained by luck of new dies at that time. At the same time on Warsaw mint, possibly was allowed usage of dies with older dates, since overdates of coins made at Warsaw mint are numerous".


1. Does it sound as the right theory to explain large number of overdates in existence?

and

2. Knowing the fact that there are many overdates in existence can we conclude that therefore "usage of dies with old date in a new year was almost always prohibited" at the mint?

WCO

There is no doubt that WCO has correctly reported the official rules about dating of coins. There are so many exceptions to this rule, however, that one has to wonder if permission was needed to use out-dated dies. There are several occasions at Ekaterinburg where older dies are known to have been used, for example.

RWJ

Makes not much of a sense does it? The latest overdate that I remember seeing is a 1882/1 10 kopecks (yes, that's a lot further down from 1830s), although that might be unusual. Ironically, I don't think I have an overdate in my collection

The latest Imperial overdate that I know of is the 1894/3 25 kopecks.

RWJ

Thank you RWJ. What exceptions to this "rule" except 1831 coinage minted in 1832 you may give as examples? We are speaking about St. Petersburg mint.

Also do you think that large number of overdates made on St. Peterburg mint is logically sufficient to conclude that it was a "rule" to overdate the dies? There were no documents found as far as I know about this kind of rules.

Thank you.
WCO

P.S. I am well aware of 1882/1 20 Kopecks (not 10 kopecks), see picture. I am also aware that 1894/3 silver 25 Kopecks is listed in KM, but I've never seen it. RWJ, have you ever seen 1894/3 coin in person? May be you have pictures of it, would be interesting to look? Looks it is eather quite scarce or there is a mistake in KM.

The 1894/3 quarter rouble was listed by Severin but I have seen listings elsewhere. I do not have a photograph but have no doubt that the coin exists. Unlike deliberate overdates of earlier years the 1894/3 is probably a hubbing error where the die was mistakenly given a blow from the 1894 hub after being hubbed with one from 1893. Similar errors, for example, may be found in the U.S. series, the 1942/1 dime being a good example. (The 1880/7- overdates for the minor silver are probably deliberate, however.)

I would agree with you that the large number of overdates known for St. Petersburg are sufficient to conclude that it was indeed a rule.

Some known exceptions to the dating rule at St. Petersburg include:

1) The 1867 copper coins (new design) were mostly struck in 1868.

2) Several of the 1894 silver and gold denominations were actually struck in 1895.

3) The 1912 Borodino rouble, if memory serves correctly, continued to be made into 1913.

No doubt there are more but it is also clear that the above examples are the exception to the rule and are few and far between.

The 1831/1832 matter is more complicated than it appears. For the poltina, new reverse dies (of the type adopted in 1832) were prepared in 1831 but not used. These were then redated (i.e. 1832/1) and used for coinage. This overdate may exist for the rouble as well.

RWJ

RWJ,

Thank you for the valuable information. Looks the 1894/3 25 Kopecks is quite scarce then. Among many quarter Ruble coins of this date that I used to see none were overdates.

WCO