What are you thoughts on this "half jefimok"?

http://www.sixbid.com/home/auctions/mmamerica/mma15/a15.htm

In my mind it started its "Russian coin" life as full jefimok. Then it was cut in half -- which makes it a curiosity at best (if cut in 18th century) or a fake -- which is more like it. It would be nice if that was mentioned in the description.

On top of it, there is a number of fakes being sold attributed as fakes. I wonder, -- does it signify the shortage of material?

BKB, can you tell us what lot number you are talking about? The link is not doing it as it's just referring to the Peter I coinage sales list.

Lot 1009. BKB, I have the same feeling as you. The stamps are positioned absolutly wrong. It will be interesting to see it in person.

Direct link: http://www.sixbid.com/home/auctions/mmamer...15/01009H00.HTM

I also felt that there was much less material than last year, although I didn't take the trouble to compare every period offered. Unfortunate for me (collecting especially 50 kopeek of Nicholas II) is that there is only ONE COIN being offered from that series!

Also, neither the last UBS auction nor the recent "Numismatica Genevensis" auction had any of these for sale -- or if they did, I probably already had that year and MM in better condition.

thank you, gx :-) I am not too good with this internet stuff.

2 igor: Of course! The originals were first cut, then counterstamped. This was done to make sure that there are complete counterstamps on both halfs. I am pretty sure that it is a modern cut. I would not be surprized if the other half appears soon: someone made sure that the other half also has partial counterstamps.

The issue is: we almost never discuss fakes outside of ebay. While, people on eBay may not always be professionals, -- I believe, that auctioneers like DM cannot possibly miss such things. After all, he has only 1 auction per year. Even if this "coin" came from his auction partners, he should not have listed it. Thus, whatever is being done -- is being done consciously and on purpose. (IMXO) And, there is no eBay to stop the auction :-)

I am not that much familiar with pre Peter I coins. But I looked at the Half Efimok coin and agreed that it was most likely first stamped and then cut in half.

It indeed may be done because Half Efimok coins are scarcer than full Efimoks and therefore cost more. So there could be a reason for counterfeiters to do so, i.e. cut half of a coin leaving bigger part of "Tsar on a horse" stamp and almost complete date.

The questions still are.

1. Could the cut be done at the mint after counterstamping was done? If yes then the coin may be authentic.

2. Is there on the cut edge evidence that stamp "Tsar on the horse" was stamped AFTER the coin was cut in halves? If yes, then the coin may be authentic. Necessary to see the cut edge if there is extra metal moved by stamping.

3. Are we certain that there is "no way" Efimok could be cut in halves AFTER counterstamping at the mint? Then this one is a fake.

While here is no evidence to eather 1, 2 or 3 then I would not be calling it "a fake" for now. Just coin with questionable authenticity. I would personally avoid it just because there is a chance it may be a fake (no difference recently made fake or older one).

WCO

The questions still are.

1. Could the cut be done at the mint after counterstamping was done? If yes then the coin may be authentic.

No. This was not how it was done at the mint.

2. Is there on the cut edge evidence that stamp "Tsar on the horse" was stamped AFTER the coin was cut in halves? If yes, then the coin may be authentic. Necessary to see the cut edge if there is extra metal moved by stamping.

It is obvious from the picture that cut was done AFTER and not BEFORE. There is no displaced metal -- the cut is pretty straight. The stamps, however, are deformed by the cut

3. Are we certain that there is "no way" Efimok could be cut in halves AFTER counterstamping at the mint? Then this one is a fake.

Not only that the coins were not cut after stamping. It is very interesting to see if the coin itself is not a fake. The stamps are somewhat suspicious.

While I 95% agree with you I still leave chances that 1, 2 or 3 may be true and this coin is not a fake. This is all I tried to point out, there is no 100% certainty that it is a fake.

WCO

If you check 100 year old price lists of some famous coin shops (Kopylov, etc.), they often had copies and galvanos of rare coin. This was a way to 'plug a hole'. Today it is probably different, but I am sure there are collectors out there interested in curious near numismatic items. In some cases you have to be impressed with quality of non-mint produced antiquarian copies/fakes. Lot 1004, for example, is simply great.

Not just great, but also catalogued and published! (as Mr. Markov says, I didn't check that myself).

If this logic is followed, we should be buying all the fakes on the market while they are cheap. 200 years from now our descendants will make a killing selling this crap for a lot of money. Maybe the best long term investment yet So, our discussion of the fakes on eBay should be: oh... another great fake on eBay!!! Let us buy it while it is still cheap!!!! I do not get it. A fake is a fake, no matter how long ago produced. See what happens when you start accepting "Novodels" as numismatic items? -- fakes are next. And, for $2000 -- what a bargain!!!! If it sold ones, why not sell it again

Good point.

But I would exclude Novodels from "fakes", that's another "story".

WCO

What logic are you refering to? First of all, the technology was different back than. They did not use high tech military secret super duper state of the art equipment to make stuff we see today. Second of all, I simply mentioned that some collectors today collect near numismatic items. Third of all, we should buy things that give us years of joy, even if they are crap to everyone else .

Hello everyone!

Nice topic (actually, already discussed in this forum a couple of days before). We're again talking about professionalism in its wider meaning: not just being able to detect a fake but also (which is even more important to me) being able to refuse to list such "questionable" items on an auction. We can, again, go back to Mr Gorny, Baron...now Markov...?

As to this half-efimok, I tend to agree with Igors - w/o having the coin in your hands it is almost impossible to tell what that is. The rim and edges are the most critical parts in determining sequence of "cutting/stamping" events for these coins.

The Oldman.

BKB, I agree that the half yefimok was originally a full yefimok, for the reasons which you have stated.

As far as the novodel issue goes, if a coin was made in the mint, either as an original or as a restrike, then it is genuine. If it was made outside of the mint, then it is a fake.

I've yet to meet a collector who insists that all 1804 dollars are fakes because there were none struck with that date until the 1830s. One could adopt that position, of course, but I don't know anyone who has.

If the 1804 US dollar novodels are accepted, then I don't see why Russian novodels should be held to a different standard.

There is a difference between 1804 dollar, which was more of an exception, and Russian novodels. Those were mass produced, most of them for the wrong reasons. But, I think I said that before...

In this instance, we are not discussing novodels. We are discussing what is most likely a fake being passed for an original coin. We are also discussing a fake being sold as "...antiquarian copy of some 200 plus years suitable in any collection. In fact, even as a copy it is much rarer than Novodel Roubles of the same Tsar." (lot description) We see someone who is a well known dealer shamelessly comparing the rarity of a fake to that of a novodel. This is the only reason why I mentioned novodels at all. Mr Markov is the one who placed them on the same shelf, not me.

Some thoughts on this topic:

1) The 1997 Sotheby’s sale, of the Fuchs collection of Jefimoks, indicates that the Moscow Mint counterstamped cut talers in order to create half Jefimoks. Therefore, such pieces were known to the public, however rare that might be. We do not, however, know to what extent the half Jefimoks were made because when the majority of the pieces were melted over the next several decades, only the best full-weight pieces would have been kept, not “damaged” coins that had been cut in two.

2) It was sometimes true in older societies that coins were cut to create smaller denominations. (Eight reales coins are known to have been cut into quarters, for example, as late as the 1790s in the Caribbean.) The coin in question seems to me to have the appearance of having been cut in order to create a half Jefimok for the marketplace of, say, the 1660s. Whether this was done at the Mint as an afterthought or by a private person after the coin left the Mint I will leave for others to determine.

3) Actually, the U.S. production of novodels, which was done from the 1830s through 1869, was probably much heavier than in Russia, with many thousands of pieces made for collectors. The Gobrecht dollars of 1836–39 and the 1856 Flying Eagle cent were made in relatively large quantities, for example.

RWJ

A fake is a fake is a fake, no matter whether made yesterday or 200 years ago. I agree with you on that point.

However some contemporary counterfeits have a legitimate place in numismatics. Here is an example of a contemporary counterfeit "gold" coin made at a time when platinum was considered nearly worthless. It might not be a "real" coin, but it has a legitimate place in numismatics and has a neat story behind it as a circulating platinum "coin" which preceded the Russian issues:



Cheers!

Now the story with half Efimok finally is down to this. Do we think the coin is an authentic piece if it was minted as Efimok and cut shortly later and circulated as half Efimok after that? If we answer yes, then the coin is authentic after all.

Another related question. Are half Hrivnas authentic, they all were cut at later time and for needs of circulation? Can we call them non authentic just because they are halves?

WCO

More...




BKB,

You see where you did a mistake. You stated that Efimok coins were never cut after stamping, and this is not true. You also thought this cut was made at modern times. The rest of your logic led you to conclude that this piece is not authentic therefore. And this is wrong too, this piece is OK, i.e. authentic.

WCO

I think not many of us ever had half-efimok in their collection, but the looks of the coin from Russian sale is really suspicios. It is well known fact that efimoks were counterfeited long time ago. Half efimok as extremely rare piece (about 20 known).

These 2 are authentic:
http://www.coinarchives.com/w/lotviewer.ph...80&Lot=2012
http://www.coinarchives.com/w/lotviewer.ph...84&Lot=6302

Here is the history of the piece we discuss: poor buyers try to sell such a rare coin every year Not a very nice pedigree.
http://www.coinarchives.com/w/lotviewer.ph...84&Lot=6143
http://www.coinarchives.com/w/lotviewer.ph...06&Lot=4450

Coinarchives.com proves to be a very usefull site.

Mr Timofei,

I think you've just sounded what the majority was suspecting ...on pedigree

The Oldman

If many of us make a smallest donation of 5-10-20$ we surely will help this brilliant enthusiast A.J. Gatlin
who created Coinsarchives website to keep the project going on. Or at least a few words of appreciation will be good too. One of the most (if not the very best and the most) useful coin websites in the Internet! I visit the database several times a day.

Really useful. I only think about his selection of the auctions. Does he list only those that gave him permission? In any event, the job is well done and really of a huge assistance to all of us. In my (corporate) mind, the best way to keep it flying is to find a proper project sponsor.

The Oldman

WCO,

Where do you get your information?! It is true that Zander knew of what he thought to be an original half cut after stamping. But, his words were something like: Do not discard withut careful examination. He stated that Ostermans specimen was original. But, original what? Half jefimok, or half-taler? There are theories of "saving at least half of the coin" I do not buy it, but it is another story...

You believe that this item is OK -- prove it. But not with your usual circumlocution. Do not attack my arguments with words -- attack them with arguments and facts.

BKB

The fact that a dozen or so half-efimok were counterstamped after cutting. Pictures show that many of those bear even 2 date counterstamps.
The fact is that still nobofy knows the real reason why Osterman's efimok was CUT AFTER counterstamping.
The fact is that there are not so many pieces (cut after counterstamping) to even reason about why and what for. Spassky lists only 2 - #1334 (Osterman's which BKB mentioned) and #702. That's it. 2 coins, pictured in a book. If we are uncertain where and when and who cut - Mint or while circulating - any new coin unknown to the public untill an auction house lists it in auction catalog - must be given full expertise or discarded.

I agree with BKB that such a piece should not be listed in any auction for being questionable.

BKB,


You stated that Efimoks were never cut after they were stamped. I almost believed you at that time since I (as already said) do not have that much knowledge on pre Peter I coinage. However, it proved to be untrue.

Here we can read:
http://www.coinarchives.com/w/lotviewer.ph...80&Lot=2012

"...It has been noted that most half yefimiki were cut prior to re-striking, but that some genuine examples are known that were cut after the countermarks were applied".


So after some research I can tell:

1. This is the same piece as was on Gorny sale.

2. There were 2 kinds of half Efimoks. One kind was cut prior to counterstamping and the other kind was cut after counterstamping. As confirmed by RWJ it was common back then to make fractions in many countries (and Russia is not exception). This offered half Efimok is cut after counterstamping. So you were right, it was minted as Efimok at first.

3. The look of the coin and its edge (according to DM and previously to Gorny) clearly indicates that this piece is authentic and cut at the time of its circulation.

4. Those of you who wants confirmation may see this piece in person prior to the sale.


WCO

Nice. If I have an Efimok, all I need is to cut it, softy polish the edge, apply a little some sulphur powder to hide the fresh look and voila - would that be an 'Extremely rare' piece? There is no way you can distinguish the time of a cut - was it 1 day ago or 350 years ago.

As to the IX Triton description you quoted - "some genuine examples are known" I think that Spassky specifically confirmed autenticity of only 1 piece (#1334) and did not mentioned that about the other coin he listed (due to the fact of the coin entering Hermitage in 1938). So the word "some" maybe a little exageration?

Would anyone participating in this discussion like to have this coin in their collection? I think not.
After seeing the auction history of this item, I do not think it will sell in Markov's sale.

Now it's questionable. It was called "a fake" before and without hesitation.

I do not know how everyone else, but I do not like when non qualified people are "trushing" coins offered for sale on upcoming auction by a major dealer. Then crowd "confirms" the verdict and opinion becomes public. That dealer "sells fakes".

I saw many times that crowd is neather fair nor knowledgable in most cases. So please let's be cautious when giving out verdicts on fakes. In some cases we can be mistaken, but will hurt a honest dealer's business anyway.

Again, DM invites anyone interested to see this coin first, i.e. before providing your opinion to the public. For now (without even seing the coin in person) giving out the verdicts does not look right since such people are not qualified to do so. Not because of their knowledge, but just simply they never seen the coin in person.




It is "Russian" understanding that graders-authenticators can't distinguish "doctoring" on coins. That's why that many doctored coins found in earth are being "cleaned", but in reality doctored, applied different chemicals to dissolve dirt, stains and corrosion, toned with all sorts of artificial stuff and then sold as "genuine". But those coins are "genuine" only somwewhere deep inside, their "genuine" part is buried deep under "make up". And yes, graders-authenticators can easily spot this kind and reject from grading. Neverthless, Russian forums are filled with discassions on coins doctoring of all sorts.

And are you sure there are no ways to distinguish between recent cut and doctoring where you "softy polish the edge, apply a little some sulphur powder to hide the fresh look" and the old cut?

WCO

That's right. Exactly my point. Number of people interested to buy this coin after reading this thread may be down to zero, DM should thank the starter of this topic for "good job".

WCO

I appologize if I was not clear at first. It is my opinion that this "coin" is fake. I wanted to see if anyone seconded it. I do not force it (my opinion) upon anyone. There is no question in my mind, however, and seing the actual coin will not change it -- it cannot be sold as a half-jefimok if it was cut after stamping.

There is no issue that the "thing" was cut after stamping. If you question that, it is your right. But you will not find much support. Now, is it possible that the coin was cut in 18th or even 17th century -- yes it is possible. But, is it half-jefimok or a half-taler? I think it is the latter, at best. Can it be sold as a half-jefimok without indication that it was cut after stamping and what it means -- not if you want to maintain any sort of reputation. (IMXO)

Zander and Spassky state that few after-cut pieces are known. They do not state that they are original!!!! Only Osterman's specimen is believed an original due to dating of the cut. But, it has never been proven that it was done at the mint contemporaneously with counterstamping. It could be done after 1659 when the jefimoks were withdrawn and self-converted into talers. Then, a half-taler, which is a rather common thing, could be produced.

DM should thank himself for listing this item as helf-jefimok. As to major dealers, some major dealers shall pray every day for the fact that people like myself are too private to make the crap they do to us public.

As to "nonqualified people trushing an item listed by a known dealer" -- that is a personal attack totally unrelated to the subject. Would you not agree?

I thank the starter of this topic for good job. For making me fetch for Spassky 'bible', re-read Zander chapter on Efimki, dig inside many auction catalogs and coinarchives web-site. And for pointing out a fake.

I am sure we will all benefit from Dm.Markov auctions by getting unquestionably authentic coins. The purpose of this forum like any other open internet community is to share knowledge. I hope dealers will benefit too when they know that at any time some starter will spot a fake item.

BKB,

Nothing personal, please forgive me if it looks for you this way. I explained that "non qualified" not because of luck of knowledge on the subject. Non qualified because you've never inspected this coin in person. So it should not be hurting you in any way, and you did not see the coin in person, right? See it, inspect it thoroughly, ask DM or Gorny or both why they think it is OK, listen to their arguments, do your own research if you need it, prepare facts to discuss on the forum and provide true statements, not just "it was never done after counterstamping, so therefore it is a fake". Only then you have the right and are qualified to scream: "This is a fake!". But even this is right thing to do if you have all the evidence to support your opinion.

As for now I think we have no evidence to say "this is a fake" the same as to say "it's authentic". I myself are not interested in early coinage at all, but using a "non guilty until proven guilty" approach I call it authentic until someone will prove otherwise. As of now, you proved nothing but only how it is possible to ruin someone's reputation.

I also want to join people who are grateful to you (that you started this topic) since I learned a lot between then and now on the subject. And in this "learning opportunity" meaning I am grateful to you too. But I do not like that this "learning opportunity" backfired on DM's business and this is what should be avoided in the future.


WCO

I did not see the coin in person. However, DO You think that a personal examination will reveal the age of the cut (1655 in stead of 1660 or, most likely, 1990's)? Or a place where it was done? Or a reason it was done? You are missing the point completely. If he wants to list a questionable item -- no problem. But it has to be properly described. The only reason why I want to see the item is to determine whether it is not a fake altogether. I do not need to see it in person to know that it was cut after stamping.

The fakes we "trash" on eBay are also not being inspected thoroughly beforehand... Thus, we should not label them as fakes until we see it, and touch it, and speak to sellers to hear their "grandmother" story?!

I disagree. Most people that participate in auctions do not get a chance to inspect the material they bid on(same as on ebay). And "known" dealers use it very well(like ebay sellers). If we keep quiet and do not point out the fakes or misdescriptions -- these people will get screwed. Now, do you know how much time it takes to get your money back from an auction house? I wonder if you ever went through that experience -- because I did. It took a long, long time. And then, they offered me credit instead of a refund.

BKB

Every coin you see is fake until you find the proof that it is an original. That's a better approach for a collector. Helps to save money.

Well, I think you agree with me now that you don't have enough evidence to say this coin is a 100% fake. And if you don't then why you even started the thread the way you started it "... fakes not on eBay". If you don't understand it you DID FORCE PEOPLE to believe that this coin is a 100% fake. And it does not seem right for me. And if you do not need to see it to find out that it was cut after stumping, that's up to you. But just recently you thought it is not even possible that authentic piece was cut after the stamping. And we all know now that you made a mistake there. And if you made one mistake means that you may be mistaken all together.

I would advise to be more careful in the furture. And this is no matter what this particular coin will be find out later authentic or not. We have to learn how to be more responsible for our own words.

WCO

OK, let us see:

1. I have enough evidence to know that this is not half jefimok.

2. No I do not need to see the coin to know it was cut after stamping.

3. If By 100% fake you mean that the jefimok was counterfeited before being cut in half, you are right. For that I need to see the coin. But, from the get go, I assumed that DM would not make THAT mistake. So I assumed that the jefimok that was cut was at some point an original counterstamped taler.

4. If you read anything besides catalogs you would know that there is no evidence of jefimoks being cut at the mint right after stamping. There is only an opinion by Spassky that was repeated by Zander. But, not one of them said that they have evidence that a half-jefimok was manufactured in that manner. (I am starting to get personal, so I should probably quit.) But, who are we, that "all know that I made a mistake there."??? You quoted an auction catalog that misquoted Zander!!!! An auction catalog that sold a coin which was cut BEFORE stamping!!!! Not this one. Not like this one. So, what does it prove? Spassky provided a theory that Osterman's coin was cut to save half of the coin. No evidence for it whatsoever. My theory is that after jefimok started to circulate as a taler, it was cut in half, as was done in Europe, to create fractional coinage. My theory is supported by a large number of half-talers in existence. I personally had 4 or 5, and I do not collect talers. Another theory is that it was done recently to defraud someone like you, who does not want to listen to someone who looked into the matter. Why don't you buy it then? If you are so sure that it is an original, the price should not be exorbitant if no one else will bid on it because of me? If you buy it at 80% of the estimate you will make a killing. But, if it is a fake half-jefimok, do you think they will give you a refund?

BKB

BKB,

If after you learned that there are authentic pieces in existence cut after stumping, you still believe this coin is a fake, it's up to you. You can't distinguish between recently cut piece and one cut in the middle of 17-th Century, OK it seems reasonable without equipment and I understand you do not need to see this coin in person since you can't distinguish it anyway. But why you insist that it is a fake since you have no more evidence than me to say otherwise? I myself do not insist on anything but only that we should be carteful when "trushing" coins offered for sale by known dealers.

WCO

DO YOU EVEN READ WHAT I SAY?!?!?!?!

YES THERE ARE ORIGINAL TALERS CUT IN HALF. ONE COULD HAVE BEEN A JEFIMOK AT SOME TIME. BUT, IT DOES NOT MAKE IT HALF-JEFIMOK!!!!!!!! IT ONLY MAKES IT A HALF TALER AND A FAKE HALF-JEFIMOK!!!!

And where I said that it was cut in half at the mint? I stated a page before that it was cut during CIRCULATION. Again it was cut during time Efimoks were circulating. So do not speak about half thalers which is quite pointless. I even asked if we can now call all half Hrivnas non authentic just because they are halves? They were all cut during circulation, some people still believe that half of authentic coin is still authentic as soon as it was common practice during that Era to cut them. And I do believe that half Hrivnas are authentic and half Efimoks are too if they were cut in halves at that particular time during which they were circulated and if it was common during that time to do so.

WCO

And how do you propose we determine that it was cut between 1655 and 1659? (time period between production and official withdrawal)

In addition, there is no evidence of circulation of jefimoks. It circulated once -- when the soldiers were paid with it. Then, maybe again, if the merchant would accept it as 64 kopeks. However, if that merchant only accepted it as 50 kopek (as in most cases according to Spassky and Zander), which was the worth of the taler -- would you still think that it was then circulating as jefimok (64 kopek) or a taler (50 kopek)? That cuts the period of circulation a bit also.

BKB,

I can not determine it for sure. But you have no evidence to say "It was made at recent time". And exactly because you can not determine it too. For some reason DM (and Gorny before) believe it is authentic. But they saw the coin, possibly did some expertise and/or research on it, they definetely know more about this coin than you and me.

My whole point was... you have no evidence to support your conclusion of this coin being a fake. Do we have an agreement now that there is not enough evidence to tell that this coin is an unquestionable 100% fake? The same as there is no 100% evidence to say this is 100% authentic? At least not with our level of knowledge about this particular coin.



Does it mean that now you do not believe that Efimoks are authentic coins struck for circulation all together? Or there is something else you were trying to say?

FYI: "Ефимки с признаком" ходили по их действительной стоимости - по 64 Копейки, что точно соответствовало весу 64 серебряных дореформенных копеек." Векслер и Мельникова. Московские клады 1988, стр. 149.


WCO

I would like to see the end to this discussion. It is not going anywhere. There is enough evidence to pass on this coin at this price. May be museum can buy it and spend years deciding when it was cut in half.

I am certainly done with this discussion.

Hello again!

It was just too tempting not to mention another auction. This time it is Jean Elsen, Belgium, Auction 90, December 2006 (www.elsen.be) Please take a look at this lot:

Lot 1080. ETATS-UNIS

ETATS-UNIS, lot de 5 p.: 1 dollar 1849 O, 1853 et 1868 (2) (fausses), 2 1/2 dollars 1909 (trace de soudure, photo).
If I'm not mistaken "fausses" mean "fakes" !!!
Is it time to advise those EBay "fake-sellers" to turn to the auctions ?
They will definetely make much more there !

The Oldman