(1) My first пятак of the reign of Elisabeth ... not as nice as the one Grivna recently showed us, but a fairly decent example: 5 kopeek, 1759-MM

(2) 1788-СПМ overstruck on 1762 10 kopeek. The undertype is remarkably clear on this one!

(3) 1793-EM with great detail - I would grade this at least XF-45 or maybe even AU-50.

Thanks for looking!

Nice one bobh!

Now that overstruck coin didn't cost too much did it?

хорошо!

Very nice 1759MM. I believe that all MM's of Elisabeth are hard to find, ranging from hard to almost impossible. It took me years to complete the set. Too bad they are all hideous :-) Nice find, congratulations!

Thanks, gxseries!

What is the definition of "too much"?

Hi Bob, thank you! it's always great to see other people's treasures. As to the 5kop1793EM - couldn't the last digit be an overdate? It would need to be viewed from different angles. Mine is not quite clear either, see it attached. It's a good idea to post new acquisitions from time to time, I am planning to follow your good example. Best, Sigi
http://www.sigistenz.com/bilder/5kop1793EMd.jpg
Hit the link and then again on the picture to enlarge, see the 3 of 1793.

A super image of a super nice coin! Very difficult to make pictures this good. Not possible to say overdate or not though. If not proven that it is an overdate, I would assume that it is not.

Best regards,

WCO

Hello Sigi, and thanks for your picture -- that's a really beautiful coin you have there!

As to the possible overdate, I agree that there is something funny about the "3". The bottom of the three seems to be more closed on my coin than yours. Both show some kind of doubling or repunching.

What are some possible candidates? Possibly 1793/1?

Good question! The "3" reveals maybe more when viewing it from different positions - that is to say coin should be scanned several times, each time after having been rotated a bit (by 45°?). Scanner light then will reflect on different outlines.

Extraordinary photograph. My opinion is that it is not an overdate but rather a repunched figure 3. It was standard practice at Russian mints in those days (as well as most world mints) to leave the last digit of the date unpunched until actually needed. It appears to me that the diesinker was absentminded and thought that he was working on a smaller coin – probably the denga, and cut the wrong size figure 3 and then corrected it. (He might also have had in mind the 2 kopecks, not struck in 1793 but perhaps the dies were prepared that year and then used for the Paulian overstrikes of 1796-1797.)

It is just this kind of high-quality photograph that enables us to learn more about the making of dies at Ekaterinburg.

RWJ