Click to view attachmentClick to view attachmenthello
could somebody here give me avices concerning this coin?
about you ,is it a true?
i would buy it , what s the maximum price about you (i know this year is not common)
thank you a lot
regards from france
jean

It looks to be genuine to me but it looks like it's wiped, which will drop it's value.

I sold a similar 1900 5 ruble coin for 100USD three years ago (I really regret it - I just don't like gold!) but right now, it must be higher. I'm not too sure about the prices these days.

for me it looks like true, i try to see some details who proove it s true but i hadn t see them
is it a mark of a jewelry work on the 5?i prefere have you competent advices ,as it is possible, better than a seller which is not honnest maybe
regards from france
jean

THey are selling for $170-200 in this grade

thank you for all you advices , ill try to buy it,
regards from france

looks genuine
just sold mine (XF+) 1902 for 207 on ebay to some one in Europe

Hello Jean.

It looks to me like there is nothing particularly wrong with the coin you are showing other than the fact that it is exhibiting some signs of wear. Although the coin may not be common, it is not particularly rare either. It is offered quite often on ebay and in better conditon (not as often as the 1902, but still a lot more than some others). Unless you can get a really good price for it, I would perhaps wait for a better one.

hello
i want to buy this coin because the mintmark of this year exists only in 1899 1900 and 1901 for 5 roubles gold ( maybe i m wrong?my reference is the world coins)
and 1900 is the less common year with 30 000 coins product?
That s the reason why i think isnot really common,and i already get a 1902 in 5 roubles
I wish a good week end to everybody
regards from france
jean

Hello Jean,

Unfortunately, the Krause-Mishler catalog of world coins has some mistakes for mintage numbers ... they leave off three "0"s sometimes. Mintage figures for 1900 five roubles are actually 31,077,013 according to Severin (and also Kazakov and Rylov/Sobolin ... they all probably used the numbers given by the U.S. mint reports for Russia, or perhaps the Russian mint reports -- if they still exist, that is). With 1898 being the most common (52,378,000), 1900 is actually the second most common 5 rouble gold coin.

Another mistake is the coin weight in grams for 5 roubles ... it is not 6.45g but 4.3g. The fine weight given in Troy ounces, however, is correct.

hi bob
thank you a lot, i imagined that i will make a little mistake (without consequences)
conclusion : i must change my references......
thank you a lot
have a nice week end
jean

I forgot to add that mintage numbers for Nicholas II and some earlier types were counted for fiscal years, not calendar years. Nobody knows any numbers for the calendar years, but it usually doesn't make any difference since the important thing is to know what is rare and what isn't.

Some coins which have very low published mintage numbers, for example 1911 ten rouble coins, are actually much more common because many were struck in the 1920's from original dies (and many 1899 ten rouble coins were struck later as well). Another example is the 1915 rouble. It is somewhat scarce, but not nearly as scarce as the references would indicate with a mintage number of only 5,000. It is probably at least ten times that number in reality.

There is a little problem. You can not always relay on mint reports.

I purchased one a few years back. Compared to the price mentioned above, seems like I paid pocket change for it.

Anyhow, could someone give an estimate as to the grade of my sample. When I first uploaded the picture, I listed it as AU. But now that I have seen some more of these, I am guessing that it should be XF?

I'ts some weak strike (at U from Rublei), but it's better than XF. Much under 3% traces of circulation, so I think it's AU.