Hello!

Can not find any reliable info on Proof silver coinage of Finland under Russia (XIX-XX centuries).
Any links or ideas? I have read a lot but w/o any specifics.
Thanks a lot !

Hello and welcome! Sorry that I have not been able to respond sooner.

As far as I know and from the literature and auction catalogues that I have, silver proof coins from the Grand Duchy era are very rare. In fact, they normally are not classified as officially Proof, but as MS with a descriptor like "mirror-like finish" or something similar. These are more likely to be proof-like as a result of an early strike rather than an intentional attempt with a seperate special die. (If you can read Finn than see item #373 for an example of this type of description. The image is no longer available unfortunately.) Consequently there are no numbers available and no price catalogues have proof grades listed for this era. The highest grade given is Mint State (implying full luster and no toning). Trial strikes exist for some coins, but these are extremely uncommon. Coins of this era, with few exceptions, were struck in Finland at the Mint facilities in Helsinki. (The first Proof issues ever officially issued by the Mint of Finland were a small number (700 pcs) of the Åland 100 markkaa commemoratives in 1991.) And as I mentioned above, as far as I know no proper proof silver coins exist.

If you have an example or have have come across literature that states otherwise I would be more than happy to hear/see anything that you might have. I could then inquire to more knowledgable fellow members of the Finnish Numismatic Society for further details and clarification.

And again welcome to Coinpeople! Hopefully this helps.

Dear Sir Sisu,
thank you very much for your very detailed message. I've come across (in my old coin album) 25 pennia in clear proof. I can not make a photo as I sent it to a grading company to see what they think about it. I'm very well aware of the lack of decent information on this topic but will post the results.
Thanks a lot,

I look forward to it!

Oldman,

I can not offer you "reliable" info about the issue (as a book or online source), just my own thoughts and how I see it. If you want any of it I would be more than glad to discuss the issue. If you just looking for a list of books and sources I can not help. However, I can offer one opinion/explanation that was received via e-mail from Finland some time ago, to be exact from The National Museum of Finland, department of coins and medals.

I am also interested in your vision of this issue. Do you think that Finnish Proofs exist (in copper, silver and gold) and any explanation you can offer to support your statement would be appreciated.

Thank you in advance,

WCO

I did not see this thread untill somebody mentioned it in Russian forum. I personally saw finnish copper and silver coins. Modern catalogs (like Kazakov) list these. Coppers and silver proofs have frosty devices, polished field (polished die and undercoin), double strike, polished edge on 2 marks. Whether it is PP or proof in the modern meaning - maybe difference there is too small.

As far as Finnish gold proof - there are 2 coins graded as PF by NGC. Both are bogus novodel pieces if not fakes. Here is a picture of one of them. This die was apparently polished (probably AFTER use as business strike, and probably after 1917) - the most striking argument is mirror-like area inside central shield (where lines should be) plus very thin feathers (results of polishing off the die).

....

WCO,
I'm familiar with the Finnish Mint's opinion. If I am not mistaken, they still believe that there were no proofs (at least oficially) minted.
And I would agree with them on this and want to add that all proofs are "restrikes" or "novodels". I've seen many copper proofs and at least a couple of silvers, however, in perfect condition , with no doubts made using original dies.

The bottom line here is (in my opinion): Originally , there were no proofs planned for mintage. However, with growing interest in that area of numismatics and to FILL the gap, PP coins were minted using original dies.
Again, I may be wrong here as I still try to find the reason ??
BTW, I'm still waiting for NGC on my silver piece !

I tend to agree with this (please read my message above) with some exceptions

Take care,

Oldman,

Thank you for your answers. I'll try to be as short as possible. I hope you can read Russian and here is part of a Russian official document (Issued by Central Bank of Russia), that states that "Proofs" are minted only modern days, in other words there were no Proofs in Russian Empire (Finland included) since as they state this technology is modern.

-------------------
Приложение 2 к Инструкции Банка России N 33
"О порядке выпуска в обращение в Российской Федерации памятных монет" от 27 декабря 1995 г.
КЛАССИФИКАТОР КАЧЕСТВА МОНЕТ

..... "Пруф" и улучшенное качество чеканки - это специальные категории новейшей технологии монетного производства последних десятилетий, используемые для выпуска, главным образом, коллекционных монет".
.....
------------------

The same is opinion not only mint in Helsinki but also biggest Museums in Russia expressed the same opinion, I heard this opinion years ago and many times over. I am sure that in your collection there are some Proofs not only from Finland, but from Russia as well, so tell me, do you believe that Finnish and Russian sources are right and grading services marking any Russian or Finnish coin minted before 1917 as Proof are wrong? And how you can explain this huge difference in opinions?

A few months ago one known to me person wrote to the museum in Helsinki asking their opinion. Here are e-mails they exchanged (I removed only contact info and the rest is unedited).

-----------------
Dear Dr. Tuukka Talvio,

I'm sorry to bother you again. This is my last question to you about Finnish coins. I know that you are very busy, but your opinion, as the only one qualified expert in Finnish coins, is very important to me. According to Finnish mint records, gold coins 10 and 20 MARKKAA were never minted in PROOF state. Meanwhile, NGC (NUMISMATIC GUARANTEE CORPORATION of AMERICA) graded at least 2 gold coins from Finland as PROOF. I'm a little confused. Can you explain this contradiction? Is this because of not good qualification of graders here in US, or Proof gold coins were, indeed, minted?

Thanks a lot for your help

Sincerely yours,
Dr.....

--------------------------------------

Dear Dr.........,

The mint of Finland has issued proof coins 'officially' only since the 1990s. However, already in the late 19th century special strikings were produced for collectors with fresh dies. At that time persons like the Grand Duke Georgii Mikhailovich and I. I. Tolstoi ordered sets of coins from the mint, and when Tolstoi's coins were sold by A. Hess in 1913, many of the Finnish pieces were described as 'polierte Platte' which is usually translated as 'proof'. So you can say that proof coins were indeed minted in Finland but only for special purposes, and with a technique that was less developed than today.

Best wishes,
Tuukka Talvio

Keeper of Coins and Medals, PhD
The National Museum of Finland
P.O. Box 913, FIN-00101 Helsinki

----------------------------

Oldman, after reading this particular letter what can you tell? Is Mr. Talvio confirming existence of such coins, denies it or unsure? What meaning you can extract from his answers? Also, is Mr. Talvio saying that such coins are Novodels or on the contrary they are originals (minted for Grand Duke and I.I. Tolstoi, sold at Hess in 1913, i.e. well before 1917)? I am interested in your opinion.

Thank you.

WCO

WCO,
I broke your response into two major parts above.

1. I do not think that NGC/PCGS/etc. making mistakes grading coin as Proof - they are pretty knowledgable in this area and I believe , over years, they have learned a big deal of the 3 major "proof-detection" characteristics that I do not want to repeat here. So, in my opinion Finnish Proofs do exist ! However, [now read below]
2. ... as I stated in my previous posting, those Proofs are indeed novodels (Am I smart or what ? ) This letter from Finland , that you kindly provided, just proves my point (actually, Scandinavian coinage has been my area of inrerest for 40 years or so). Thus, there were no ORIGINAL proof coins minted for/by Finland under Russian rule. Those minted for His Majesty Grand Duke and Duke Tostoi were indeed minted before October 1917, however, for PREVIOUS years. As an example, known in existence proof 25 pennia 1875S was most likely minted in 1903-1904 for Duke Tolstoi collection using original dies. It does not lower its price or uniqueness , however, we're not discussing numbers here , we are trying to do some scientific research.


As to the Russian proofs I do believe they existed well before XX century. However, I have some concerns in this area looking through recent auction catalogs - you know what I mean
Sorry , if my message was too lengthy.
Have a good one,

Dear Oldman,

Thank you for your time and answers.

1. I am not sure that I understand how reading the letter you came to conclusion that ALL Finnish Proofs are Novodels?

2. Reading this letter do you believe that Mr. Talvio answered that there are authentic Finnish Proof gold coins in existance? Authentic pieces struck at the mint? Is it stated in this letter or there is some other meaning which does not allow to clearly say "that proof coins were indeed minted in Finland but only for special purposes, and with a technique that was less developed than today"?

3. While you satate that in 1903-1904 were struck 1875S 25 Pennia coins you completely dismiss possibility that mint could also strike 1903-1904 coins at that same time? What info makes you to dismiss such a possibility?

4. Also interesting to find out your opinion on why Russian-Finnish sources (mints, museums) deny even existence of such coins?

Sincerely,

WCO

WCO,
here is what you quoted in your original letter from Mr Talvio:
"Dear Dr.........,

The mint of Finland has issued proof coins 'officially' only since the 1990s. However, already in the late 19th century special strikings were produced for collectors with fresh dies. At that time persons like the Grand Duke Georgii Mikhailovich and I. I. Tolstoi ordered sets of coins from the mint, and when Tolstoi's coins were sold by A. Hess in 1913, many of the Finnish pieces were described as 'polierte Platte' which is usually translated as 'proof'. So you can say that proof coins were indeed minted in Finland but only for special purposes, and with a technique that was less developed than today. "

Now let me answer your questions above to my best knowledge:

1. Isn't it what Mr Talvio writes ??! Please re-read his letter above... This has been known for many years by the way.
2. Finnish gold proofs exist...now ! But they have not existed 100 years ago or so ! Again, they were minted by the Mint for Grand Duke and Duke Tolstoi specifically and later than the date on the coins show.
3. As far as I know , there were no silver proofs minted in 1903-1904 FOR 1903-1904, only for previous years. Please do not get me wrong - THESE COINS ARE VERY RARE (if true proofs and authentic) even as restrikes or novodels, much rarer than Russian proofs of Nicholas II.
4. They base their conclusion on available sources, trust me they have ALL possible sources available. Why would we want to question that ? Existence of a couple of proofs does not prove their EXISTENCE !!! Some of them very well may be modern strikes !

I hope I've addressed your concerns. Best wishes,

Sorry for my bad english.

I discussed finnish proofs with Mr Tuukka Talvio few months ago.

1) There are well known finnish proof like 25p 1872 and 1898. It was an experiment on finnish mint after 1917. These coins have non-standard obverse (obverse type 1913-1917 on 1872).

2) I think that new dies was polished on Helsinki mint since end of XIX cent. There are many coins with mirror surface from this period. Usually it is a small silver coins (silver is softer than copper; don't need big strength for small coins). There are many proof-like (with mirror surface) 25p 1913-1917. But these coins is only first strike with fresh dies. It was minted on standard equipment with only one strike (usually need few strikes for proof).
There was not so many VIP collectors. It is regular coins.
Many years these coins was graded as MS but few years ago something was changed (not in coins ) and these coins grading as PF now.
You can check lot 1974-1976 Sale 36 at goldbergcoins.com for copper coins

3) There are few proof coins like gold coins from post above (which sold by WCO). I think that born history of this coins like as 75p 1863. Old used dies was polished and used for strike this coins after WWII.
I think it was not possible that defect coin was provided to VIP collector before 1917. You can check: http://www.mkjassociates.com/cgi-bin/ilgvu...=36&lot=863
state of arm was broken by polish


With best regards,
Denis

Very interesting. Thanks for the discussion.

I am curious - where the Finland got it's minting technology from? From Russia or elsewhere?

Thanks! Indeed interesting.
Actually, this new information proves the point: there were NO ORIGINAL Finnish proof coins minted. All of
then either re-strikes or "novodels".

You have mentioned 1872 and 1898 25p proofs. They are known to exist (I am still sure they both were restruck in 1903-1904 .... see my postings above) but how about 1875 25p ? Do you have any information on those, or other dates ?

Thanks a lot,

"I am still sure they both were restruck in 1903-1904"
It is incorrect because obverse die for 1872 was type of 1913-1917 and for 1898 was type of 1906-1910 (type 1906-1917 but different mintmark).
In 1903-04 there was not these obverse dies. Both proofs 1872 and 1898 was minted not early 1906.
You can check picture of lot 373 from second post in this thread.

I have not any info about other years or denomination (like 25p 1875).

Dear dk_spb,

Thanks. Most likely you're right and I have just forgotten the dates. It could very well be 1913-1914 and not 1903-1904 (it's been awhile since I researched the topic).
Great !

Thanks a lot,

"In May 1861 Soldan (first mint director) travelled to Sweden, Denmark and Germany. The Stockholm mint he considered too big to serve as a model for Finland, but the mint of Hannover .... seemed to fit the role. The drawing and the cost estimate ... were prepared in Berlin" (from book by T.Talvio)
First dies for finnish coins (before 1872) was made by Lea Ahlborn (Stockholm).
In 1866 there are project (not realized) for 2p and 20p coins as in France.

Is it answer for your question ?

Some observations.

1. Some Novodels may be distinguished from original coins if they are Class II, i.e. have different details from original coins. Proof 25 Pennia 1872 and 1898 as dk_spb said have obverse of later type (1913-1917), and may be therefore distinguished as Novodels made at later time.

How about Novodels of Class I. They have all details and everything the same as on originals, were struck with original dies just at later time. Since it is not possible to distinguish Novodel or not, no one actually cares, and no one calls "Novodel" such a coin.

So calling ANY coin a Novodel makes sence ONLY if there is something that allows to distinguish between the two coins, orifinal strike and Novodel.


2. After very brief research I found references on the following Finnish Copper and Silver coins that were listed as Proofs (in addition to two 25 Pennia coins already mentioned):

Copper

1 Pennia 1916

5 Pennia 1873
5 Pennia 1892
5 Pennia 1896
5 Pennia 1913

10 Pennia 1865
10 Pennia 1866
10 Pennia 1867
10 Pennia 1891
10 Pennia 1896
10 Pennia 1899
10 Pennia 1915

Silver

25 Pennia 1891

50 Pennia 1869
50 Pennia 1872
50 Pennia 1874
50 Pennia 1889
50 Pennia 1892

1 Markka 1872
1 Markka 1874
1 Markka 1892

I am pretty sure that this list is not complete and references may be found on most other dates in Proof, I recall to see 25 Pennia 1908, several dates of 1 Pennia, etc. but can't be sure or do not have reference or do not have time to look more into the catalogues or other sources. So we are not talking about just 2 or 3 coins, we are talking about almost date run of Finnish series in Proof. While I agree that earlier dates may be Novodels struck by the mint at later time I do not see any proof to the statement that ALL dates and denominations of Finnish Proof coins are Novodels.

If there will be any explanation, documents or references provided to prove or reject this theory I would be more than glad to hear what it is.

As additional (but weak) evidence to reject this theory is Hess auction of 1913. The coins there were listed as PP (Proof) and it is definite that at least MANY Finnish Proofs were struck BEFORE 1917 and obviously NOT LATER THAN 1913. I would be pleased if someone can list here ALL Finnish PP coins sold at Hess auction in 1913.

3. Do we all agree that Finnish coins exist as Proofs (Novodels or not) or dk_spb has different opinion on this matter?

WCO

I can not agree with this statement. NOVODELS may or may not have features different from original coins. However, they all are minted later and not for circulation with ,normally, higher quality.



Absolutely, 100% ! But they were minted not on original dates (in my mind).

1) If all of these coins are really proof - I think that all of these coins can not be novodel
2) If there are so many proof coins - must be many document or references about producing proof coins before 1917
3) Why all of proof coins graded as proof in last few years? There not any references about proof coins before 2000.


I think it is mean that coins has mirror surface. Not Proof.
We discussed this on russian numismatic forum. PP in 1913 was not proof.

Dear Oldman,

What I was saying is quite DIFFERENT from what you are saying.

You were stating that "NOVODELS may or may not have features different from original coins". I agree

You were also stating that "... they all are minted later and not for circulation with ,normally, higher quality". I agree with you too.

But this all is not related to my statement. I said, that "calling ANY coin a Novodel makes sence ONLY if there is something that allows to distinguish between the two coins, original strike and Novodel".

And it means the following. Let's say you have two coins in your hands that both were minted as Proofs. You also know that this was done twice, first this coin was minted as original during that year which it bears, second time it was minted several years (or decades) later as Novodel. You also know that Novodel was struck with original dies (Class I Novodel) and there is nothing on both coins (they are looking as twins) that will allow you distinguish where is Novodel and where is Original strike. Would you call BOTH Novodels, BOTH originals or how?

You got what I was trying to say, I hope.




Agreed 100% too, there is no doubt for me that many Finnish coins in all metals copper, silver and gold exist as Proofs and they are authentic, genuine coins and may be stars in any advanced collection. However, I asked dk_spb since I saw on other forums he expressed other opinion.

Dating of time when Novodels were struck 1903-1904 or 1913-1914 is VERY important, since it allows to think somehow what dates are Novodels and if they are ALL Novodels.

As so far you did not provide ANY evidence to support your statement that Finnish proofs are ALL Novodels.

best regards,
WCO

Somehow I missed this post, it appeared when I was typing my answer I guess.

dk_spb, welcome to Coinpeople! I hope we can discass issues here in a friendly atmosfere.

Yes, over the years I myself used to see with my own eyes may be two dozen of DIFFERENT dates and denominations of Finnish proofs. Some of them (few) I had in my posession and others I just inspected that were on major auctions here and there. I know collection that contains several pieces as such right now. These are scarce or even rare coins but not something that no one ever heard of.

And as you see, nice Oldman with his 50 years in coins business also have no doubt about existance of Proofs.



They are real Proofs and I agree to you THEY ALL CAN NOT BE NOVODELS. So Oldman'd theory does not look right for me, especially without any evidence presented.



I do not know any official Finnish (or Russian) documents or other research references, may be you know, then please present it here. But luck of references can be easily explained. Any such a reference will question official Helsinki mint opinion (Russian official opinion and statements of Russian Museums and even Central Bank of Russia official documents) about existence of Proofs at that time. Remember, they state that this is MODERN TECHNOLOGY.

So if you or someone else will be able to explain WHY they state that, you will move far in understanding everything about early Finnish (and by the way Russian too) coins in Proof. I asked this question on Russian forum, but it was left without answers by you and the rest of opponents.



What is the earlier reference you can find on Finnish Proofs? Is Hess catalogue 1913 a sufficient reference for you that lists PP coins. They are called Proofs for many decades, not just several last years.

Grading system is not something frozen, it is still in its development process. As soon as new knowledge becomes available and accepted by numismatic public it becomes part of a very straight and quite easy to understand system. The grading services are young itself, so everything they graded is graded within the last few years. But Proof coins are old.



That was what you were stating, you did not want to listen to anything else.

-----

I apologize if there is too much "water" here and my messages are too long.

Sincerely,
WCO

I never said that there are not finnish proof.
But there are only Novodel ("experiment" coins): 25p 1872 and 1898.


I need ask you about correct discussion.
We (both you and I) clear understand all about info from modern official documents from Central Bank of Russia.
You know opinion by Tuukka Talvio: He practically said that there are not proof coins before 1917.


PP is a polier platte = mirror surface.
Not proof. And "many decades" this coins was graded as MS or "mirror surface" not proof.


Ok. But I am sure that is very bad for grading system if MS coins will be PF after "development process".
Could you provide me any reference (auction catalog, grading records or other) about finnish proof (not only mirror surface) before 2000 (before "development process")?

Any can check this genuine "proof" coin.
http://www.northeastcoin.com/popupcontaine...=/inventory.jsp
This is lot 1976 from sale 36 from goldbergcoin.
If this coin was minted as high quality coin WHY it was minted by broken dies????
Both "1" has broken right down "leg".
Can mint director provide this broken coin for VIP collectors?

I think that this is a regular coin.

Questions to WCO: Are you think that proof coins was minted as regular coins in Helsinki mint ? Or this is not regular coin?

Again, your information is wrong, and since you use wrong information you unable to accept the rest. Many dates, almost entire Finnish date run are known in Proof.




No, I absolutely don't see that or how Mr. Talvio said that there were NO Proofs before 1917. This is absolutely and entirely not truth. He did not say that.

PP is Polier Platte = "mirror surface" and this was used to describe Proofs, and this is still in use in Germany the same as word Proof in America.



Then tell me WHY Finish and Russian sources completely DENY existence of Proofs during Imperial time? I again stress that without answering this question you will NOT move anywhere. And you dismissed this question again.

I want to use example from a different country to illustrate something. So please do not think it is irrelevant to our discassion, it is pretty much relevant. Could you tell me, how Russian Proof coins were called in German catalogues back then and now? I hope you will see they were called PP back then and now. Do you using this fact can say THERE ARE NO PROOF COINS in Russian Imperial numismatics? Can you say that ALL Rusian Proofs are Novodels? With Finland is the same.

best regards,
WCO

The lower part of "1" in the date of that 1 Pennia CAN NOT BE BROKEN! It is dented on a die, there is nothing to brake.

But what you noticed is something VERY DIFFERENT. And you noticed details that diffirintiate this SPECIALLY PREPARED PROOF die from regular strike. Thank you. A very good point to illustrate everything I was saying above.

WCO

I think you always win in poker?

Yes, you absolutely right, all 1 penni coins with both legs (left and right) at lower part of "1" in the date - all these coins is defect. Only coins with missed right legs are good!!!!
There many regular coins with defect "legs" in the date because this is typical defect for finnish coins. May be all of it was a proof ?
Your verison that it is SPECIALLY prepared or specially made dies for proof mint is perfectly
Why use good dies for proof minting if it possible prepared dies by removing same details.

PP in 1913 was a REGULAR coins minted by fresh dies. Proof techniques (few strikes by special made dies) don't use in Finland before 1917.

I don't know that russian sources DENY existence of proof coins.
Many document was lost in revolution and wars.
Also as I know many documents about minting still top secured in Russia.
And (as I know) nobody who have access to this documents not DENY existence of RUSSIAN proofs.

WCO, could you provide high quality picture of any finnish silver proof coin (any source; may be internet link)
But not 25p 1872 and 1898

I dismiss your sarcasm for now and continue since I think you want to find the answers and not just "play games" with me.

Again that 1916 Pennia have nothing broken. This is as made. And some other MS 1 Pennia coins are made differently, with both legs at the bottom of number "1". So your statement that the coin was made with "broken dies" is false. Die brakes look very much different on coins, just so you know. They look as irregular raised lines, usually between letters and/or details.

---------------



I do not have high resolution pictures of such coins in my possession. And I do not want to waste my time and try to find them on the internet. But I can give you a source that you can ask about pictures and also you may ask opinion on the issue about Finnish Proofs and how long that dealer calls them as such. Worldwide coins of California, James Elmen. He did MANY pictures of such coins for his catalogues, and he used to sell MANY such coins.





Приложение 2 к Инструкции Банка России N 33
"О порядке выпуска в обращение в Российской Федерации памятных монет" от 27 декабря 1995 г.
КЛАССИФИКАТОР КАЧЕСТВА МОНЕТ

..... "Пруф" и улучшенное качество чеканки - это специальные категории новейшей технологии монетного производства последних десятилетий, используемые для выпуска, главным образом, коллекционных монет".
.....

Again you did not answer why this text is stated in this official instruction of Russian Central Bank. It means Proofs are made only at modern times. In other words, they could not be made just a few decades ago. This is the same as official position of Finnish mint! If you answer it you will open your eyes, if you can't answer this there is nothing to discuss. THIS IS THE KEY to understanding the issue!

Answer this!

WCO

I can not help you if you try to read our modern official instruction word by word. Welcome to live to Russia and in 5-10 years you will clear understand all about these "instruction".
This instruction was wrote for marketing purposes: people who sell commemorative coins must understand that they sell super-puper nodern technologies. There are many technical and historical error in documents like this.

WCO, we discuss about finnish proofs about year. You as usually said that there are many finnish proof in copper, silver, gold, but as usually "I do not have high resolution pictures of such coins in my possession. And I do not want to waste my time and try to find them on the internet."
I respect your position but it is very hard to understand it for me.

I think my position is clear to understand:
1) There are not any genuine finnish proof before 1917 (exclude experimental 25p 1872 and 1898; but I think that it was minted later 1917).
2) All coins was graded as PF is a novodel (like 20M gold) or mirror surfaced coins (also PP in German).

But this is correct only if we mean that PF is:
1) coins was minted by specially made or specially prepared dies (specailly, not as usually, polished AND/OR chemically ethed for matte AND/OR other)
2) coins was minted by special (non-regular) minting process (few stike and other)

If you can provide any pictures of silver PF coins we will check which dies was used for minting. May be it was another version of experimental coins.

About "legs" for "1": you can read any modern finnish catalog with coins varietes. You can easy find that absent legs is a standard defect of dies (master dies) for finnish coins after some use. I can not agree that it is a special modification for PF dies.

Oh my, and I thought no one beside a few ever visited the Finnish section.


This discussion has gone beyond my area of expertise (if one could even call it expertise), so I cannot answer these questions authoritatively. However, I would like to point out one part of Tuukka Talvio's text that WCO has posted: "special strikings were produced for collectors with fresh dies". I understand this to mean that these special coins were nonetheless produced with the same normal planchets, dies, and striking techniques that produced the average circulated coins that are in my collection -just earlier strikes. However, this is not to say that since these coins were going to be "show" pieces for important people, that the striking process was not slowed down and carried out a bit more carefully.

My general understanding is that most Finnish coins of this era that could be considered "proof" are in fact early strikes on new dies and consequently give the appearance of being proof-like. I would still call these coins MS with a special description: mirror-like finish. My opinion here is that the confusion is a result of inductive logic being used. Assumptions are being made about the striking technique on the basis of what the resulting strike looks like. It looks like a proof, it must have been a special proof. My amateur guess is that most proof-like (PP or whatever other term one prefers) is a coincidental early strike with fresh dies as Mr. Talvio writes, and not because of any special dies, planchets, striking technique, etc involved.

Now, whether some coins were struck with special/unique dies at a date other than what is on the coin -outside of test strikes- I cannot say. Hopefully I can get some authoritative assistance.

I have read letter from T.Talvio as Sir Sisu.
But Mr.Talvio work for state museum (like "official person") and he can not anwer YES/NO for so important question. He need leave small backdoor: "described as 'polierte Platte' which is usually translated as 'proof'. So you can say that proof coins were indeed minted in Finland".
Usually translated as 'proof' but aslo mean 'mirror surface'
If you have translated as 'proof' - you can say about finnish proofs.
But these coins was minted by standard process with standard fresh dies.

Interesting. Within a short letter of Mr. Talvio many different people were able to find so many different meanings. Some even found that "... proof coins were indeed NOT minted in Finland..." when in reality it said otherwise.
And no one paid attention to this part of Mr. Talvio's answer: "... with a technique that was less developed than today". Not a single comment about this or how it is related to our current discussion.

WCO

Dear WCO,
You can read this letter how you like, but I have discussed this letter with Mr Talvio.
He said that he has wrote about minting by standard fresh dies on standard equipment.
You can try read between line of letter or another way.
Easy way to understand your mistake - ask Mr. Talvio.

So you did ask him as I suggested several months back? OK, so did you ask him in person or in writing? If in writing, would you be so kind to present here his answer, and not your interpretation of his answer?

Thank you in advance.

WCO

Dear Sir Sisu,

I have an interesting news. That 25 pennia that I have mentioned above received ......Proof 65 Cameo ! Interesting, isn't it ?

Best regards,

Dear Oldman, this is amazing coin, congratulations! And what date is it?

WCO

I'll keep it in secret

Sorry,

As you wish. But let me guess what date is that. How about 1875? Is this the date that as states dk_spb never existed in Proof? I hope those are good news for dk_spb. May be one day quantity of such coins will become "quality", Finnish Proofs will be accepted.

WCO

In person.
After our discuss on russian forum

I need say again: there are 25p experimental proof coins minted after 1917.
Well known 1872 and 1898. May be there are other dates.
This coins have non standard obverse.

To dk_spb: The year of this coin is different, I'll send you the scans early next week.

Also, I'm not really sure what you mean when you always mention that "the coins have non-standard obverse". As far as I'm concerned, 25 pennia coins from 1873 until 1917 had the same exact design. So, 25 pennia, say, 1875 would look alike 25 pennia 1915, wouldn't they ? Or am I missing anything ?

Best Regards,

The side with the eagle went through some modifications through the years, resulting in some differing types. I do not have good pics of my own but a Finnish collector has a nice set of images of Finnish coins posted on his website. For easy comparison's sake I have posted two of the pics here. Note the size of the eagle in relation to the rim for example -most noteably in the sceptre and tail.

There are two types 1873-1902 and 1906-1917.
Differences also in size of coat of arms (shield and crown of grand duke).
Small coat of arms since 1906.

Ok, let me check. As I promised, I'll post the photos later.
Best regards,

Ok.
Thank you in advance

#1 POST


Dear dk_spb!

I guess I'll ruin your theory in a minute. Here are the photos of of two coins: 25 pennia 1875-s and 25 pennia 1916-s.
I should admit, you were right when you stated that the eagles are slightly different. You can easily see that on the scans. However, according to your theory , there were no Finnish proofs made until after 1910s. So, the eagles on these two coins should be identical. Right ? Wrong ! THEY ARE DIFFERENT.
Any ideas ?
*this is 1916 25 pennia.

Trully yours,

POST #2
this is 1875 25 pennia

Thanks,