Anyone else think this is a fake?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=330201071252
The seller also has two plate grivnas which look equally dubious. He says that
sales are final, another bad sign.
RWJ
Full Version: 1766 Siberian kopeck
I do. I've seen a lot of these in the mid 90s in Moscow. (I'm no expert though)
sure does look fake.
I especially like the disclaimer/caveat "...so dont complain"
I especially like the disclaimer/caveat "...so dont complain"
QUOTE(RW Julian @ Dec 31 2007, 04:48 PM) 
Anyone else think this is a fake?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=330201071252
The seller also has two plate grivnas which look equally dubious. He says that
sales are final, another bad sign.
RWJ
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=330201071252
The seller also has two plate grivnas which look equally dubious. He says that
sales are final, another bad sign.
RWJ
The grivna plates (misidentified as polpoltina plates), in my opinion, are undoubtedly false, as even a cursory comparison to pictures of known genuine examples will quickly establish. (Has there ever been a genuine example of an original Russian copper plate of any denomination offered on ebay? If so, I've missed it.)
The style of the Siberian piece also looks wrong to me.
The terms of sale are equally disturbing.
I have compared the photo to my Quarterman GDM Corpus and Brekke.
On obverse:
The encircling dots are not consistant with the original design.
The tails are offset (far away) from back (gap too big).
Main crown seems "floppy"
Left animal snout too wide, not narrow.
On reverse:
Left side leaves do not show veins, even though ware is not significant.
Also, right side stalk ends do not have up-sweep at ends.
Bow loop too narrow.
Just a few observations. Would not bid.
On obverse:
The encircling dots are not consistant with the original design.
The tails are offset (far away) from back (gap too big).
Main crown seems "floppy"
Left animal snout too wide, not narrow.
On reverse:
Left side leaves do not show veins, even though ware is not significant.
Also, right side stalk ends do not have up-sweep at ends.
Bow loop too narrow.
Just a few observations. Would not bid.
QUOTE(Thee_Immortal_One @ Jan 1 2008, 06:43 AM)
I have compared the photo to my Quarterman GDM Corpus and Brekke.
On obverse:
The encircling dots are not consistant with the original design.
The tails are offset (far away) from back (gap too big).
Main crown seems "floppy"
Left animal snout too wide, not narrow.
On reverse:
Left side leaves do not show veins, even though ware is not significant.
Also, right side stalk ends do not have up-sweep at ends.
Bow loop too narrow.
Just a few observations. Would not bid.
On obverse:
The encircling dots are not consistant with the original design.
The tails are offset (far away) from back (gap too big).
Main crown seems "floppy"
Left animal snout too wide, not narrow.
On reverse:
Left side leaves do not show veins, even though ware is not significant.
Also, right side stalk ends do not have up-sweep at ends.
Bow loop too narrow.
Just a few observations. Would not bid.
Guys, don't take the trouble to make detailed comparisons. This Siberian "coin" is a worthless fake without any doubt. It is completely out of style.
Right, I wouldn't even waste precious time sorting through Brekke or Uzdennikov trying to attribute this garbage. It almost has a cartoonish appearance not even suggesting being authentic.
A proper evaluation is about details.
Just saying it looks fake shouldn't be enough. Learning collectors and the experienced will always need to use reference material. The readers of this forum may wish to know more then just an opinion. The may want to know what references were used.
When I began collecting Russian coins, I was exposed to three reference works:
Uzdenikov - Russian Coins
Harris - Russian Coins
Quarterman - Grand Duke Mikial..... Corpus 1973 (The GDM Corpus was the book to drool over but not easy to find.)
Recently a long thread concerned the fake 1908 gold. Some spoke about mintage records and stylistic differences. Others said it looked fake. The former comments on mintage records and style were the proper approach.
We need more scholars in the hobby. So, I gave details, I referenced references, and rendered my opinion.
This is the hobby of kings, so lets be above reproach.
Just saying it looks fake shouldn't be enough. Learning collectors and the experienced will always need to use reference material. The readers of this forum may wish to know more then just an opinion. The may want to know what references were used.
When I began collecting Russian coins, I was exposed to three reference works:
Uzdenikov - Russian Coins
Harris - Russian Coins
Quarterman - Grand Duke Mikial..... Corpus 1973 (The GDM Corpus was the book to drool over but not easy to find.)
Recently a long thread concerned the fake 1908 gold. Some spoke about mintage records and stylistic differences. Others said it looked fake. The former comments on mintage records and style were the proper approach.
We need more scholars in the hobby. So, I gave details, I referenced references, and rendered my opinion.
This is the hobby of kings, so lets be above reproach.
This coin is listed and illustrated in the Brekke/Bakken supplement. You will find it in the chapter on Fakes. 
Squirrel,
Now that's service!
Now that's service!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.