Full Version: 1726 Rouble
I have no expertise in Russian coins, but I have this coin my grandmother gave me many years ago. It's been in a drawer for a long time. It is really of sentimental value. Considering it's condition, don't think it's of much monetary value. I'm just hoping that someone can provide more info or history about it. From my limited research, I know this is Catherine I. There is a piece missing from the edge. Don't know if this could have been done when the coin was made, or if it was damaged by someone at a later time. Also, the 6 in 1726 looks to be inverted, don't know if that is of any significance. Thanks to all for anything you can tell me.
Yikes! 
Big mistake there if you think that is not worth much!!!!!!
What you have there is not a ruble, but a poltina, which is MUCH rarer than a typical ruble!!!
The real question is, whether it is a genuine coin or not. I honestly am not too sure, but I was definately thrown off by Ekaterina II's portrait. But if it is true, the reverse design of the double head eagle seem to be in the wrong location compared to the text, as the text seemed to be off from it's usual location. I am going to guess Uze0649 or 0653, which is still considered as "fairly easy" by Uzedenikov, but in reality, they are expensive!
I am sure that the damage was done as it must have been worn as a badge or some sort and was just cut straight off... not brilliant, but it works.
May I ask what the edge type is? Do you happen to see slanted edge, which I seem to see it as, or do you happen to see some faint words around the edge?
I'm hoping that grivna will pop around to determine it's authenticity.
Big mistake there if you think that is not worth much!!!!!!
What you have there is not a ruble, but a poltina, which is MUCH rarer than a typical ruble!!!
The real question is, whether it is a genuine coin or not. I honestly am not too sure, but I was definately thrown off by Ekaterina II's portrait. But if it is true, the reverse design of the double head eagle seem to be in the wrong location compared to the text, as the text seemed to be off from it's usual location. I am going to guess Uze0649 or 0653, which is still considered as "fairly easy" by Uzedenikov, but in reality, they are expensive!
I am sure that the damage was done as it must have been worn as a badge or some sort and was just cut straight off... not brilliant, but it works.
May I ask what the edge type is? Do you happen to see slanted edge, which I seem to see it as, or do you happen to see some faint words around the edge?
I'm hoping that grivna will pop around to determine it's authenticity.
QUOTE(gxseries @ May 8 2006, 02:17 AM)
I'm hoping that grivna will pop around to determine it's authenticity.
[right][snapback]214708[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]214708[/snapback][/right]
Well, I don't think it is possible to positively determine that a coin is genuine just from looking at a scan (although you can sometimes identify a fake from a scan). And I'm not sure I have sufficient knowledge to claim status as an "expert" in counterfeit detection. If I did, I'm sure I'd have some humbling experience that would remind me of how much I have to learn.
gx is correct, it is a poltina (half ruble) of 1726 (St. Petersburg mint) with a retrograde "6" in the date. Like many other countries' issues, the half-crown size coins are often much rarer than the crowns (though less avidly collected).
The placement of the legend relative to the eagle does not disturb me. It does vary from the illustrations in Uzdenikov's book, however the dies were often made by hand in that era, so there are many, many different varieties.
The most striking feature of the coin shown is the retrograde "6" in the date. I looked through GM but was unable to locate such a variety among the coins listed there. However, Severin does list the retrograde 6 coin in his 1963 catalog ("The Silver Coinage of Imperial Russia 1682 to 1917") as Sev-800 (rated as "scarce" there).
I see nothing about this coin that causes me to believe that it is an obvious fake. However, no-one who knows anything would ever declare a coin genuine based solely on a scan.
The clip on the edge might well affect market value, especially if it was done outside the mint. As for what the coin might bring at auction, it is hard to say, but I think a few hundred dollars is quite possible.
Russian coins of this era are often crudely made with flawed flans and poorly struck. They are rarely seen in uncirculated. So you can't collect these in the same way that you might collect some other coins.
Wow. This is not what I expected! My grandmother was born in 1892, and emigrated to the US I guess about 1917 or so and brought this coin with her. I suppose counterfeits could have been made back then. I have some digital photos as well, including the edge that I can post later once I get home. There is slanting on the edge. The coin looks like it was struck off center, so the slanting pattern does not go all the way around. Don't think there are any letters on the edge, but I will check again. Thank you all.
QUOTE(grivna1726 @ May 8 2006, 06:16 AM)
Well, I don't think it is possible to positively determine that a coin is genuine just from looking at a scan (although you can sometimes identify a fake from a scan). And I'm not sure I have sufficient knowledge to claim status as an "expert" in counterfeit detection. If I did, I'm sure I'd have some humbling experience that would remind me of how much I have to learn.
gx is correct, it is a poltina (half ruble) of 1726 (St. Petersburg mint) with a retrograde "6" in the date. Like many other countries' issues, the half-crown size coins are often much rarer than the crowns (though less avidly collected).
The placement of the legend relative to the eagle does not disturb me. It does vary from the illustrations in Uzdenikov's book, however the dies were often made by hand in that era, so there are many, many different varieties.
The most striking feature of the coin shown is the retrograde "6" in the date. I looked through GM but was unable to locate such a variety among the coins listed there. However, Severin does list the retrograde 6 coin in his 1963 catalog ("The Silver Coinage of Imperial Russia 1682 to 1917") as Sev-800 (rated as "scarce" there).
I see nothing about this coin that causes me to believe that it is an obvious fake. However, no-one who knows anything would ever declare a coin genuine based solely on a scan.
The clip on the edge might well affect market value, especially if it was done outside the mint. As for what the coin might bring at auction, it is hard to say, but I think a few hundred dollars is quite possible.
Russian coins of this era are often crudely made with flawed flans and poorly struck. They are rarely seen in uncirculated. So you can't collect these in the same way that you might collect some other coins.
[right][snapback]214742[/snapback][/right]
gx is correct, it is a poltina (half ruble) of 1726 (St. Petersburg mint) with a retrograde "6" in the date. Like many other countries' issues, the half-crown size coins are often much rarer than the crowns (though less avidly collected).
The placement of the legend relative to the eagle does not disturb me. It does vary from the illustrations in Uzdenikov's book, however the dies were often made by hand in that era, so there are many, many different varieties.
The most striking feature of the coin shown is the retrograde "6" in the date. I looked through GM but was unable to locate such a variety among the coins listed there. However, Severin does list the retrograde 6 coin in his 1963 catalog ("The Silver Coinage of Imperial Russia 1682 to 1917") as Sev-800 (rated as "scarce" there).
I see nothing about this coin that causes me to believe that it is an obvious fake. However, no-one who knows anything would ever declare a coin genuine based solely on a scan.
The clip on the edge might well affect market value, especially if it was done outside the mint. As for what the coin might bring at auction, it is hard to say, but I think a few hundred dollars is quite possible.
Russian coins of this era are often crudely made with flawed flans and poorly struck. They are rarely seen in uncirculated. So you can't collect these in the same way that you might collect some other coins.
[right][snapback]214742[/snapback][/right]
Robert,
Catherine I (wife of Peter I and his successor) ruled 1725-27. You could probably spend a lifetime specializing as a collector of just her rubles by die variety.
Her first coins (the most common type, 1725-26) were struck with her facing left. The old Russian collectors called this type "oborotnik" ("vice-versa"). Later issues (1726-27) face right, as do all other Tsarist portrait coins.
Catherine was a gentle soul who was able to calm the rages of her husband, Peter I when he ruled. As Empress, she left much of the real function of ruling Russia to Menshikov, who was the real power behind the throne during her short reign. He issued some debased minor silver which was later recalled and destroyed, being treated by the Treasury as on a par with counterfeits. You can see one of those coins by clicking on this LINK.
Catherine I (wife of Peter I and his successor) ruled 1725-27. You could probably spend a lifetime specializing as a collector of just her rubles by die variety.
Her first coins (the most common type, 1725-26) were struck with her facing left. The old Russian collectors called this type "oborotnik" ("vice-versa"). Later issues (1726-27) face right, as do all other Tsarist portrait coins.
Catherine was a gentle soul who was able to calm the rages of her husband, Peter I when he ruled. As Empress, she left much of the real function of ruling Russia to Menshikov, who was the real power behind the throne during her short reign. He issued some debased minor silver which was later recalled and destroyed, being treated by the Treasury as on a par with counterfeits. You can see one of those coins by clicking on this LINK.
I'll have to add another competitor to the list 
But yes, Robert, I don't see how it can be a counterfeit coin, and if it is, it sure is an extremely well made counterfeit to fool me.
And pardon me for not welcoming you earlier on - enjoy your stay here and feel free to ask any questions.
But yes, Robert, I don't see how it can be a counterfeit coin, and if it is, it sure is an extremely well made counterfeit to fool me.
And pardon me for not welcoming you earlier on - enjoy your stay here and feel free to ask any questions.
QUOTE(gxseries @ May 8 2006, 02:38 PM)
And pardon me for not welcoming you earlier on - enjoy your stay here and feel free to ask any questions.
[right][snapback]214812[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]214812[/snapback][/right]
That goes for me as well. Pardon my bad manners in not welcoming you earlier.
Thank you all for the warm welcome. I'm adding 2 macro images of the edge and cut area. Don't know if it will make it any easier to determine its nature. My geuss is that the cut was made after it was minted. Ekaterina II is mentioned earlier. Is the person on the coin Catherine I or Ekaterina II?
I don't have any plans to sell or auction this coin. It's a piece of family history that unfortunately has been lost. I am very greatful for the information you've provided so far. Any further information is also much appreciated. Sounds like this is an unusual coin at the very least.
I don't have any plans to sell or auction this coin. It's a piece of family history that unfortunately has been lost. I am very greatful for the information you've provided so far. Any further information is also much appreciated. Sounds like this is an unusual coin at the very least.
Sorry, it should be Catherine I! I messed up and should have checked out what Tsarina she was. 
Yes, I am pretty sure that the reeded edge was done in the mint, not afterwards. The other wear and damages were done after someone used it as a jewellery or such. That is a good reason why some parts of the coin still have some details, while most circulated coins don't. Congradulations!
Most definately an interesting coin you have there. Thanks for sharing the pictures!
Yes, I am pretty sure that the reeded edge was done in the mint, not afterwards. The other wear and damages were done after someone used it as a jewellery or such. That is a good reason why some parts of the coin still have some details, while most circulated coins don't. Congradulations!
Most definately an interesting coin you have there. Thanks for sharing the pictures!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.