I have all dates of the AM piataks, 11 in total including overdates and minor variants No, this is not to show off but to illustrate that all my
pre 1791 pieces have wide netting and all my later pieces have narrow netting. There seems to have been a change in 1791, as I have both types of netting.
I would very much appreciate any contributions of fellow collectors' holdings. Which date and which edge ? Thanks to everybody, Sigi

By sigistenz

Nice coins really by the way Sigi. Unfortunately I don't have any coins struck in AM, or rather I don't really like collecting monster 5 kopeks so this is going to be quite interesting. Thanks for showing - always good to see something interesting

Hi Sigi. My records show I have 1 of each 1789-1796 except 1795(3)...10 in total
I'll see if I can photograph the edges (if I can find the camera after the move ;-) )

Steve

(and I haven't forgotten the 1795/88 gx)

Here you go, Sigi.
(Photos are of same coins, in different light. I dont have a macro lens yet, so sorry for the bad focus)
1790 AM
1793 AM

Wonderful pictures, Josh, thank you. They confirm that before 1791 edges were coarse, and finer thereafter.

Thanks, Sigi. Speaking of Edges, have you seen varieties in the CM edges as well? Im puzzled by the question of CM Piataks all being overstruck, (Brekke sup. 97, quoting Uzdenikov) Yet i havent seen a photo of one that shows the slightest sign of either Elizabeth or Peter III coins underneath. The other thing ive noticed about many CM piataks it the almost perfect roundness of these coins, suggesting they were overstruck in a collar. Any insight there?

Very cool stuff. Sigi's and squirrel's photos clearly document different edge dies. Wonder how many they used per year? The change-over in 1791 is neat. Same is seen in US where the edge dies were replaced with slightly different ones during the year. You can see a clear migration. In US this shows that they were hubbing the edge dies and switch-over occurs when the master edge die and working hubs finally wear out and they need to produce new masters and working hubs.

Sigi or squirrel,

Can you guys see any diff to a pattern within a year? IE, 1790 has the course design but 1790 coin A has one pattern and coin B has a slightly diff one? This would lend support to Russian hubbing edge dies as the patterns will be close but not exact due to minor variation in the hubbing.

I was able to check my set of AM piataks (13 pieces) and found the following:

1789 Wide, 1 piece
1790 Wide, 2 pieces
1791 Narrow, 3 pieces
1792 Narrow, 1 piece
1793 Narrow, 1 piece
1794 Narrow, 3 pieces
1795 Narrow, 1 piece
1796 Narrow, 1 piece

The extra pieces are for overdates.

RWJ

This is a very interesting area. Several years ago I obtained from
Alex Basok a 1763 CM piatak that was clearly overstruck on a Peter
III ten kopecks. This is illustrated in RNS Newsletter 10, if you have
a copy of that issue. Within the past couple of years I have seen one
or two more.

According to the documents in the Corpus, the Sestroretsk (CM) Mint did
not make new planchets but rather overstruck Peter III coins. Considering
that St. Petersburg (SPM) overstrikes for the 5 kopecks are easily found,
I have always been of the opinion that Sestroretsk made new planchets
regardless of what the documents say. Perhaps it was intended to overstrike,
and some Peter III coins were so treated, but something changed and new
planchets were made.

One would think that the presses at SPB and CM were more or less the same
and it is hard to believe that somehow the CM workers managed to eliminate
the undertype whereas SPB could not.

RWJ

Hello RWJ.
The reference in Brekke's supplement of 1997 states (via Uzdenkov's work) that Sestroretsk "had very powerful presses" , an explanation for no traces of overstriking.
Another observation, on a 1766 CM (my example) and several others i have seen photos, there is a distinct curl of metal at the edge, as if metal were flowing up around the die, due to being restrained by a collar (very small, but noticeable). Have you seen this artifact on other CM piataks?

I will look for RNS 10. I might just have that one.

I am not quite certain what you mean by a "curl of metal at the edge." Could you post a picture for
a better understanding? I have nearly 100 CM piataks in my data base of illustrations and can check
these against your illustration.

I think I will page Rittenhouse on the question of larger presses and the complete effacement of the
undertype. My instinct would be that the dies could only take so much pressure even if the press was
much more powerful. It is possible that Uzenikov saw a document on this point but may also have said
this to account for the lack of undertype pieces at CM.

Rittenhouse can also better address the question of collars.

RWJ

will do, RWJ ill take a pic tonight.

Sigi.. sorry, didnt mean to hijack your thread. I will post the pic on a new thread.

I have 12 pieces, and find somewhat different results for the netting size.
I found that being able to judge large and small size was actually quite difficult as large variations in coin thickness can distort perception of what is large and what is small netting. Instead, I measured the widths of 3 consecutive nets XXXX.
(measuring the width of one is not easy...differences are much more prominent over 3 nets).

Defining (arbitrarily) 1789 as the standard netting width, I found

1789 WIDTH=100 (Standard)
1790 WIDTH=125 (25%Wide)
1790 WIDTH=125 (25%Wide)
1791 WIDTH= 75 (25% Narrow)
1792 WIDTH=100 (Standard)
1793 WIDTH=100 (Standard)
1793 WIDTH=100 (Standard)
1794 WIDTH=100 (Standard)
1795 WIDTH=100 (Standard)
1795 WIDTH=115 (15% Wide)
1795 WIDTH=150 (50% Wide) AND WIDTH=100 (Standard), depending on location
1796 WIDTH=120 (20% Wider)

Total 12 pieces.

The width numbers are only approximate but do show relative differences. Also, I didn't carefully look for netting width variations in a given coin, and only measured it in one of the 1795 pieces where it was quite obvious.

Conclusions from my set:
(1) 1791 netting width is indeed narrower than for other years
(2) 1789, 1792, 1793, and 1794 have the same width netting. So any change in 1791 to a narrow net isn't permanent.
(3) 1795 and 1796 show wide netting
(4) At least one coin shows marked differences in netting size

Based on what other people have found the whole story of AM netting looks a little more complicated than first supposed.
Interesting topic Sigi. Thanks for starting it

Steve

Most of the pieces I have on hand are relatively thick which may have thrown off my results. The
coins, as with those for most collectors, are in a safe deposit box, and I will try to check them as
soon as possible.

RWJ

I suppose is possible to completely obliterate the undertype in a strike if the coin was weakly struck or the overstrike was strong enuf. However, I very much doubt they could have done this on a consistent basis. So, if most of the pieces don't show undertype then fresh planchets were used.

I'd also like to see the "curl".

Neat stuff on the edges.