This is explanation of how on 1859 Commemorative Ruble in Proof and some other Russian Proofs of that time "eagle can fly above helmet and horses’ legs be separated from body of the horse”.


This is Italian coin (of about the same time) that very well demonstrates my point. I chose it since I have good pictures of it.

Links:

http://i01.expertcollector.com/uploads/0003900004_1.jpg

http://i01.expertcollector.com/uploads/0003900004_2.jpg


Look at 6 o’clock at letter “N” of mintmark, left vertical part of it is almost completely missing, just a bit visible. Look at the wreath above, branches and leaves are separated from wreath. It graded with NGC as Proof-64 Cameo.

http://i01.expertcollector.com/uploads/0003900004_3.jpg


I hope this very well demonstrates my point. “... a Proof should be perfectly struck up for all details” but "should be" does not mean it "always is". This “defect” is the same as one can see on 1859 Commemorative Rubles and some other Russian Rubles in Proof of that era. Saying that coin is a fake just because of these “defects” found on a Proof coin is nonsense.

WCO

Hi,
Got your point WCO, sounds correct.

WCO, if I show you large picture of 1859 rouble could you tell its PL or regular issue. What part of the coin do would you like to see. (if possible of course)

Thank You.

Ilya,

Do not bother to prove your point. It's just a waste of time.
The only thing I want to say that when I have asked the guy, who started this talk about the coin on Staraya Moneta, to show the same coin with all features of fake and the same features of proof, he told me he can't do that. I guess fuflodels have made only one such fake. It's just the same situation like it was with Finnish proofs. If I do not have one, it does not exist.

WCO,

I understand your point but will have to disagree to some extent. The coin you use to illustrate your point has very heavy die polish. It is the polishing that has cause the thinning and separation. Note the heavy north-south die polish lines on the reverse - not uncommon for some proof coinage. So, the separation is not a strike issue, but rather a reduction of the devices due to die polishing. The coin is quite fully struck as evidenced by the rim, dentils, etc. that were not affected by the die polishing. In sum, if one sees separation in the devices but no die polish lines it would be suspcious.

Also, the coin in the blow-ups does not appear to match the one in the slab. Specifically I note the heavy "carbon-spotting" particularly those near the bust's temple - ?????

Dear rittenhouse,

You confirmed what I was saying from the beginning that it is heavy die polishing on Proofs. Unfortunately, it was in another thread so that is why you missed half of the discussion, one person there reminded me not to post in "his thread".

I said exactly the following:



I uploaded new somewhat better picture of coin in the slab (click old link #3), I hope this will tell you it is the same coin. I sent it for grading mysef. Pictures in a slab were made by low resolution old camera and are not that good but I hope the coin is easily recognizable.


Cheburgen, I do not want "to waste my time" but I am very disappointed with processes going on many Russian forums. Absolutely perfect and authentic coins are called fakes (see what Timofei and several others said), collectors are afraid to buy them in Russia just because of large group of "knowledgeable authorities" made up "public opinion". On the other side fakes are easily sold and in quantities... same group of "authorities" calls them authentic and advises to buy. At first I thought it's just mass luck of knowledge in Russia, but I am not so sure anymore. Seems like many people there are playing game of "...we'd rather sell fakes...". I was reading Russian forums about your 1859 Commemorative Ruble where hoard of "authorities" gave a verdict of your coin to be a "... 100% fake".

GHV,

About PL vs Non PL Business Strike coins anyone can tell if he knows how to do so. You do not need me or making pictures for that. PL is just measure of reflectivity of surfaces of MS coin, there is a way to "measure" it.


Regards,
WCO

As we are back on the topic of proofs, I take the liberty of quoting WCO from another thread:

... However, "should be" does not mean that it always "is", not for Russian Proofs of 19-th and early 20-th century. I used to see Proofs (certified by NGC or PCGS too) with poorly struck details, planchet laminations and die breaks, all sorts of problems similar to Business Strikes. Just on Proof coins those kinds are found less often. .... Some "numismatists" on Russian forums were saying those are fakes because "... a proof should be perfectly struck"...

When the above message was posted I responded as follows:

Please post illustrations of late 19th or early 20th century Russian proofs with planchet laminations or die breaks.
I have never seen a planchet lamination on a true proof of this period but I am sure that you have photographs to
back up your claims.

The above exchange was on February 16. I have seen no answer to date.

It is also my opinion that a true proof should always be well struck. Those which are not should be examined very
carefully. It is, however, true that some series of coins in proof are not well struck up but these normally involve
alloys, such as nickel or copper-nickel, that were troublesome in the 19th century. The U.S. Shield nickels of the
1870s are well known in this respect, for example.

RWJ

RWJ, is it possible that worn proof dies might have been used for business strikes? If so, that might explain so-called "proof" coins with die breaks and laminations. Such coins could exhibit better than usual surfaces which might then be confused with true proofs by some people.

Certainly 18th century dies were sometimes used until they fell apart, presumably because they were too valuable to discard when still useful. Might that also hold for 19th or 20th century issues?

That proof dies were often later used for business strikes is true. These dies were carefully
polished and the resulting business strikes are sometimes confused with true proofs, as you
note.

I do not think the 18th century analogy holds for the late 19th or early 20th century as dies
after 1845 were easily and quickly prepared. Die breaks do exist but probably because an
employee of the Mint failed to notice the problem. I am speaking here of the gold and silver
at St. Petersburg and different rules would have applied to the copper.

RWJ

Thank you for providing some reliable information on this subject.

RWJ,

I do not think I am under obligation to post any pictures. However, after reading



I think you believe it now without pictures even though you never seen such a coin in your numismatic life. Did you check information about errors on Proof coins or someone already “enlightened” you? Why did you change your opinion, before you did not even believe such coins are in existence?

One nice Proof error coin may be found on Heritage web-site (Lot 51800, Auction 440, Russia 1828 platinum 3 Rubles); coin have flan flaw, a noticeable defect that makes that coin NOT a “Perfectly struck Proof”.

Regards,
WCO

I specifically referred to the late 19th and early 20th centuries. You made a definitive statement about proofs
of this period having laminations and die defects and I asked for examples. Apparently there is none.

The question to which I was responding concerned dies of the 18th century being used too long and was this still
practiced in the late 19th century. It had nothing to do with proofs.


RWJ

RWJ,

I made statement about ALL Russian Proofs of Tsarist era in general, read my posts carefully. You will not find words "Late 19-th Century" in my posts. I provided you a Proof coin dated 1828 with defect. However, I have to add that the 1828 platinum Proof 3 Rubles coin is most likely a Novodel made in the middle or second half of 19-th century.

WCO

"Novodel" ??? "...most likely..." ? How do you know that ?

There was a series of research articles on Russian Platinum coins published in Platinum Metals Review.

Look on this table: http://www.platinummetalsreview.com/dynami...0-3-120-129/TN4

It shows that at least one 1828 platinum 3 Rubles exists as Novodel. While there is no direct evidence supporting my statement that all 1828 Platinum 3 Rubles in Proof are Novodels I strongly believe it's true, but as a precaution add words "most likely". This date in Proof is the most common, dozens of coins were certified unlike all other dates. I think the coin you recently held was also a Novodel the same as the one sold on Markov's last auction. It is possible to say with more accuracy by measuring density of such coins but I do not know if NGC or PCGS ever did that since I've never seen any Russian platinum certified as "Novodel".

WCO

I did read your posts and here is what you said:

However, "should be" does not mean that it always "is", not for Russian Proofs of 19-th and early 20-th century. I used to see Proofs (certified by NGC or PCGS too) with poorly struck details, planchet laminations and die breaks, all sorts of problems similar to Business Strikes. Just on Proof coins those kinds are found less often.

The above statement clearly includes proofs of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. That is what I asked
about and for which you obviously have no proof for your statement. I am well aware that pre-1845 proofs
were subject to die problems and did not ask about that era.

I also indicated in another post that proof coins struck from certain alloys were subject to problems and mentioned
the copper-nickel series of U.S. coins from the 1870s. There were also problems with platinum at St. Petersburg.
The platinum of this period was as pure as the technology of the times permitted but there were enough impurities
that planchet preparation was sometimes a problem.

It is possible that the 1828 3 roubles is a novodel but the dies would have been from 1828, hence the imperfection.

RWJ

RWJ,

What you highlighted is exactly what I said. If you did not notice I mentioned "Russian Proofs of 19-th and early 20-th century" as a group, I could write "Russian Proofs of Tsarist Era" instead. This statement also includes 1917 Copper Proof 5 Kopecks. Why you did not ask me to provide you with pictures of this particular coin? You narrowed up my statement and started making unreasonable demands. And what you mentioned about "other alloys" you wrote way after my statement trying to narrow up me even farther. I know why you added alloys. You did some reading and now very well are aware that there were similar U.S. Proofs in existence. And I do not see where in my statement I even mentioned anything about alloys.

It does not matter that the dies that struck 1828 Platinum coin were original. Imperfection was NOT caused by dies, it's a flan flaw which have nothing (or a little) to do with the dies. Imperfection was on a planshet before coin was struck.

WCO

It is now “unreasonable” to ask for proof of a statement? You clearly indicated that proof coins of the
late 19th and early 20th centuries had planchet laminations and die breaks and I asked for examples.
You still have not done so.

The comments about alloys were meant to explain why some types of proof coins are not always well
struck. As to my doing “some reading” I would note that I discussed this topic in U.S. numismatic
publications nearly 40 years ago.

RWJ

Ouch!