And I would like to hear this "...special mark theory".



Also many other Russian letters have similar problems on other Russian coins, for example:

Russian letter "А" have no cross bar and looks as "Л"
"И" have no cross bar and looks as "II"
"П" have no cross bar and looks as "II"
"Е" have missing horizontal parts
etc.

I am sure those are also "special engraver marks" too.

WCO

Thanks Squirrel. It may be the lighting but I don't see a top cross-bar in the P in KOPbEKb. Of course, you have the coin in front of you!

I stand corrected, Steve! my eyes are playing tricks on me! The II's are touching, in "KOIIbEkb", so it looked like a bar... but its not. They are spaced apart a tiny bid more in "IIATb", so its easy to spot.

Also, there are some coins with an extra cross bar ... e.g., "ЗОАОТНИКА" instead of "ЗОЛОТНИКА" (quite rare die errors).

I have a theory, but only someone who has some access to the pre 1840's equipment can prove it.

I would say that having a special punch for every Russian character is expensive. A lot of characters have similarities Ь Б Ы, a lot are parallel bars with some line in between. I would say that they just made punches for common elements and then added bars to change character values on dies. Sometimes the die cutter messed up and forgot them or added them in the wrong in the wrong place.

This seems consistent with what RWJ proposed a number of years ago, but it seems beyond belief that somebody entrusted with preparing a die for the national coinage is going to forget to cross-bar a P. I can see maybe getting the direction mirrored (as in the Peter III 2 Kopeck spelling error) but not completely forgetting to add an element. That said, we do see missing letter elements.

It does seem strange by our standards, but in 18th century Russia most people could not read at all. Having a slight error on a coin would slip by most of them. But even later 19th century Russian coins have words misspelled on them for instance, an example that was stated not so long ago - "ЗОЛОТИНКА".

What about filled dies? That little cross bar seems like a good candidate.

On the contrary, seems quite reasonable explanation. The fact that some letters were even rotated like letter "П" have cross bar on the bottom on some coinage in mintmark or mintmaster's initials proves that someone who was "...preparing a die for the national coinage..." could easily punch a letter rotated by 180 degrees. With level of literacy of 18-th and first half of 19-th century for many mint workers may be "II" looked good enough as "П".

On Rubles of 1830's -1840's errors in letters were common, see catalogue of Mr. Adrianov, errors like "МОIIЕТА", "МОНЕТЛ", "ЗОЛОТИНКА", "ЗОЛОТИИКА", "ЗОЛОТННКА", etc. some of the errors were later found and corrected others did not.

WCO

I would generally agree with the following exceptions:

1) St. Petersburg engravers were using whole letter punches for medal dies as early as the
1740s yet continued to do ‘piece lettering’ for coinage dies until 1844/45. (By piece lettering I
mean that the letter A was made up of /, \, and – as well as small serif punches.) Most European
mints had switched over to whole letter punches in the 18th century.

2) A few Russian coinage dies appear to have used whole letter punches prior to 1844; the lettering
on the Borodino commemoratives of 1839 is so well done that it is difficult to determine if whole letters
were used.

3) The copper mints under Catherine II definitely used piece lettering. I have a KM piatak in which the
letter E in KOPECK appears as an F, the engraver forgetting the lower bar.

4) There is no doubt that letter variations were used during the 1750s and 1760s to distinguish one die
from another, for security purposes within the St. Petersburg and Moscow Mints. The letter C, for example,
often appeared as a G at Moscow for just this reason. There is also good reason to believe that P (i.e Pi)
had the top bar left off as die identification; it also seems to have been done in the case of pattern coins
on occasion. The 1762 two kopecks mentioned by Steve Moulding is puzzling, however, and does not
seem to fit any particular rule.

5) On the other hand, it is my opinion that mistakes during the 19th century were just that and not deliberate.
It may be that poorly educated or illiterate die-sinkers were employed to save money.

6) After 1844, when full hubs and whole letter punches were used, I know of only one spelling error, on an
1851 quarter rouble.

RWJ

...bump...

Duly bumped

Obverse/reverse look great. No problems there. Incuse line on the rim...don't know. Will have to defer to the minting mavens.

Considering a large percentage of Pauls Overstrike 5K's have been overstruck up to 4 times in their long lives, the edges are subject the maximum metal trauma, being stretched outward more and distorted more, than the obverse and reverse areas, with each overstriking. This may be the reason for the incuse region on the edge.

Here is a nicely visible undercoin. I think I posted it here once before. But here it is again anyway...

That is cool. The dual denomination just jumps right out at you.

I am pretty sure you have evidence that supports your statement for coins of Paul I overstrike program. Deliberate usage of letters with missing parts ... Would you please present it here.

Regards,
WCO

Thank you for pointing out that Paul I was czar during the 1750s and 1760s. I was
unaware of this until now.

RWJ

And where I said that Paul I was tsar in 1750's or 1760's?

This thread is about 5 Kopecks piece of Paul I overstrike program (if you did not notice) where Russian letter "П" have no cross bar and looks as "II". So I asked you for supporting evidence of your following statement: "... There is also good reason to believe that P (i.e Pi) had the top bar left off as die identification"; and apparently have not seen any so far. Or this statement of yours is not about 5 Kopecks of Paul I overstrike program but is about some other coin(s) not related to the previous discassion?

Regards,
WCO

You quoted a section that I wrote about the 1750s and 1760s and then
asked about Paul I, a topic which I did not mention. I simply drew the
proper conclusion from your query according to the rules of English.

This thread is about the overstriking program but I answered a question
from a forum member by discussing the overall question of dies and lettering.
I made it clear that the deliberate changes to letters occurred during the 1750s
and 1760s.

RWJ

Won-der-ful coin! The date doesn't show - or does it when checking the coin in person? This is the first coin I see where an undistinct date doesn't matter at all! Would you tell us the (very large) diameter? I have a similar large 5kop1793EM at a Ø of 48mm, its edge seems to be unusually undistinct
(seems much too worn for the nice appearance of the coin). What is your edge like? Is it also unclear and sort of too much worn?
I will post my coin including edge shortly.
Thanks, Sigi
(P.S.) I will start a new thread with my coin - would you join in there, showing yours again? Other Paulian re-overstrikes might show up?

Did you look at mine (link in this thread)? Also has a very interesting edge...

This whole discussion of "П" without the cross bar started (see page 5 of this thread):




Igors replied:



I am pretty sure this is still about Paul I overstrike program.

So do you confirm what Igors said or not?

If you do confirm than please present any evidence.

In any case please provide your opinion on 1793 (dated) overstruck 5 Kopecks (with "П" without the cross bar). Do you think it's deliberate error?

Thank you.
WCO

Please read the following carefully, as you did not do so the first time:

This thread is about the overstriking program but I answered a question
from a forum member by discussing the overall question of dies and lettering.
I made it clear that the deliberate changes to letters occurred during the 1750s
and 1760s.

The above was was part of a response to a point raised in this thread by alexbq2.
I did not discuss the Paul I period as not much is known about how dies were
distinguished in this period.

The Paul I overstrike may be deliberate and may be an accident and there is not
enough information at present to determine which it is. It could be either and for
this reason did not comment at the time.

RWJ

OK, now I got it, there was obviously misunderstanding before. It is just Igors's memory does not "serve him right" (you were not discussing Paul I overstriking program coins with him but may be some other coinage).

Thank you
WCO

Please learn to read. I did not mention Igors in my response. In point of fact
I have had discussions with Igors at coin shows but they were just that, discussions.
I have no doubt that we discussed the lettering matter as well as other topics. Somehow,
however, I do not recall you standing there listening to what was said.

And, in passing, I note that I am still waiting for your evidence relative to your claim
that late 19th and early 20th century Russian proof coins come with die defects and
laminations.

RWJ

Obviously you did not mention him, but he mentioned you! And you are saying that it's me who has reading comprehension problems?

All I see you are not interested to discuss anything... I can clearly read it between your lines...

WCO

And there was misunderstanding before before. If you read my post, you will see that my discussion with RWJ was about early Catherine II roubles. "if memory serves me right" is just an expression, I remember exactly what I discussed and with whom. Please do not reply. The s... is getting thicker as is.

I will gladly join you in the new thread. I just need to stop by the bank and pick up a few pieces for this discussion. I promissed pictures of some other pieces to forum members as well.

Thank you Bob, now I viewed the edge of your coin. It also looks wild as do the edges of my 2 pieces. As it seems the reoverstriking did not care for the edges? Sigi