CoinPeople.com > Edge netting of 5K 1789-EM

bobh

May 2 2008, 09:25 AM

Looks like a genuine coin to me. However, the width of the mesh on the edge looks very wide, similar to AM strikes:
1789-EM pyatak

Just curious as to whether anyone has seen such a wide mesh on these coins (sigistenz??)

NumisMattic2200

May 2 2008, 09:53 AM

I am not an expert on these yet, can you tell me what AM/EM stands for?

Yes, the edge meshing is quite thick by the looks of it, thicker than the Pyatak I showed a few months ago anyway...

gxseries

May 2 2008, 10:18 AM

Numismatt, it's the mintmark for the Russian mints. I've copied this off from huligans guide off ebay:

QUOTE

Here's a list of Russian Mint Marks I collected over the years:
1st column is the Russian abbreviation, 2nd is the English equivalent and then the name of the mint and years used.

AM AM Anninsk 1789 - 1799

БМ BM Saint Petersburg (Bankovaya Moneta) 1796

СМ CM Saint Petersburg (Gold) 1796 - 1801

СП CP Saint Petersburg 1798 - 1800

СПБ CPB Saint Petersburg 1724 - 1915

СПМ CPM Saint Petersburg 1757 - 1847

ЛМД LMD Leningrad Present

СМ CM Sestroretsk (Finland) 1763 - 1771

СМ CM Souzan (Kolyvan) 1841 - 1848

ДМ DM Moscow (Moskovskiy Dvor) 1730

ЕМ EM Ekaterinaburg 1762 - 1877

НД ND Moscow (Naberezhniy Dvor) 1704 - 1730

МД MD Moscow 1704 - 1740

ММ MM Moscow 1730 - 1796

ММД MMD Moscow 1741 - 1758

ММД MMD Moscow Present

КД KD Moscow (Krasniy Dvor) 1725 - 1730

КМ KM Kolpina 1810

КМ KM Kolyvan (Siberia) 1781 -1848

МШ MSH Warsaw 1842 - 1854

ИM NM Ichora (Izhorsk) 1811 - 1821

ТМ TM Feodisia, Crimea 1787 - 1788

ВМ VM Warsaw 1850 - 1864

sigistenz

May 2 2008, 11:10 AM

QUOTE(bobh @ May 2 2008, 10:25 AM)

Looks like a genuine coin to me. However, the width of the mesh on the edge looks very wide, similar to AM strikes:
1789-EM pyatak

Just curious as to whether anyone has seen such a wide mesh on these coins (sigistenz??)

Hi Bob, see here for comparison both my 5kop1789EM edges. One of them is a distinct 1789/8 overdate. As to the eBay coin I do not think that it is counterfeit. Best, Sigi

By sigistenz

marv

May 3 2008, 10:58 PM

QUOTE(sigistenz @ May 2 2008, 04:10 AM)

Hi Bob, see here for comparison both my 5kop1789EM edges. One of them is a distinct 1789/8 overdate. As to the eBay coin I do not think that it is counterfeit. Best, Sigi

By sigistenz

I believe the coin to be counterfeit. If you go to www.coinarchives.com, and search for "1789 AND russland" you will find some pictures of 1789 EM and AM coins that have appeared in large auctions where, presumably, the coins have been vetted. I'm not saying that the big companies are always right, but look at several of the pictures. The EBAY coin's leaves on the date side, to the left of the date, don't look genuine, but the eagles on the state seal side really don't look right to me in comparison to the coinarchives coins. I believe this is a fake. On the EBAY coin, the "soft sign" at the end of the word "pyat" has the cross bar extending through the vertical element; on the genuine coins, it does not. There are enough other differences to make me believe that it's a fake.

Marv Finnley

alexbq2

May 4 2008, 12:01 AM

QUOTE(marv @ May 3 2008, 10:58 PM)

There are enough other differences to make me believe that it's a fake.

Marv Finnley

I would be surprised if this coin was fake, but I have been surprised in the past

The EM mint had to make many dies for 1789, they struck 25 million coins with them. The overall design is consistent with what I've seen so far, some elements are different but it could be just a minor die variation.

marv

May 4 2008, 07:20 PM

QUOTE(alexbq2 @ May 3 2008, 05:01 PM)

I would be surprised if this coin was fake, but I have been surprised in the past

The EM mint had to make many dies for 1789, they struck 25 million coins with them. The overall design is consistent with what I've seen so far, some elements are different but it could be just a minor die variation.

Yes, it's a tough call on these. Even the weight isn't necessarily an indication as, I've read, the tolerances applied to a large number of coins, not to individual coins as for the silver and gold. So there could be some heavier and some lighter coins that were issued. So how does one judge? And as you say, there were many dies, and some engravers were better than others. Looks like a field ripe for the forgers!

Marv Finnley

alexbq2

May 5 2008, 12:04 AM

QUOTE(marv @ May 4 2008, 07:20 PM)

Yes, it's a tough call on these. Even the weight isn't necessarily an indication as, I've read, the tolerances applied to a large number of coins, not to individual coins as for the silver and gold. So there could be some heavier and some lighter coins that were issued. So how does one judge? And as you say, there were many dies, and some engravers were better than others. Looks like a field ripe for the forgers!

Marv Finnley

I'd say that the odds of hitting a forgery of this coin are comparatively low considering the volume of the originals. I would not really expect anything but cast copies of this coin for now, given the number of more expensive coins that can be forged. But you never know, I'm hoping better informed members will spot those fakes once they come out