Jump to content
CoinPeople.com

RW Julian

Members
  • Content Count

    990
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About RW Julian

  • Rank
    Choose your title...

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Hoosier

Recent Profile Visitors

597 profile views
  1. The Carson City Mint did not open until January 1870. These dollars with the wrong mintmark/date combinations are mostly made in China.
  2. I have been tied up on other matters for a few days (including a trip to the Central States show in Chicago) and not able to respond. My maternal grandfather was Charles E. Girard (1864-1945), the source for the name. One must eventually sell off a collection and I began to do so several years ago but used the Girard name as I was still editor of the Russian Journal. It had originally been intended to use the Girard name for this sale but I decided to use my own for this and the coming November sale. The November sale will basically be the type coins as well as a fair number of the scarcer pieces. The collection had reached about 4500 pieces, including both Soviet and Imperial, in 2006; the first sale was in November 2006. I began collecting Russian material in 1952, when there was little interest, but times have changed. Many of the pieces, such as the Georgian 1807 half abazi (one other known, in the Hermitage) or the 1775 Moscow rouble, have long fascinated me but it is time for others to enjoy these coins as I have done for so many years.
  3. I was unaware of the 1806 AT listing until you mentioned it on this forum. The R4 listing by Bitkin is a guess on his part; he also lists novodels (per Uzdenikov) for the Georgian series but I doubt that any exist. He says, for example, that the 1807 AT double abazi is a novodel but it is not; it is definitely a fake.
  4. It is likely a counterfeit, though above average. There is an 1807 AT Two Abazi that is false but was accepted as genuine by Giel-Ilyin in their 1904 reference; it is illustrated in the RNS Journal summer 2008, page 67.
  5. And here is another one who doesnt read a members post fully before he comments. The original post was not well stated. Until it was clarified, I took it the same way as BobH.
  6. My printed catalogue arrived in the mail today.
  7. I was in semi-regular contact with Tom until about 18 months ago. He was then working on an update to the copper book but it is now clear that his illness prevented the completion. It is a loss to all collectors that this planned work was not finished.
  8. B. F. Brekke standing outside his home on the island of Fyn (Denmark), June 26, 1971. I had the pleasure of visiting him for a few days and took this photograph before leaving. ..................
  9. It is correct that the zolotnik pieces were the method by which the silver in gold deposits was returned to the depositors. However, it would not have been the same silver as the Mint would have kept a stock of such pieces on hand. There is no doubt that the medal department records, if they still exist, would report the number of such pieces made.
  10. The general rule in such matters was for the home mint to send complete hubs for the dies and edging devices. These hubs were then used to create working dies. The silver was normally purchased from local suppliers and the home government reimbursed the foreign mint for the labor costs and the metal. So far as I know, the star on the edge of the 37.5 rouble pieces being the same as Paris was merely a coincidence.
  11. Some comments on this seller: 1) The 1745 rouble he has for sale at $990 is a well-known Chinese fake. 2) He does not accept returns 3) He does not accept questions about his offerings 4) Despite repeated complaints eBay has refused to do anything about the Chinese fake Enough said.
  12. This is an interesting piece. The Chinese counterfeiters have been making, for several years, a series of Moscow roubles for 1742–1755. In this case, however, they changed the mintmark to that of St. Petersburg. This is easily detected because the dies are identical except for the mintmark and date.
  13. This seller, shifaragallery, is in Estonia but obtained a Chinese fake to sell. His starting price is $990, about $989 more than it is worth. There is no return for this item and the seller has even blocked questions. In my opinion a seller to avoid. http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?icep_ff3=2&pub=5574633083&toolid=10001&campid=5335826004&customid=&ipn=psmain&icep_vectorid=229466&kwid=902099&mtid=824&kw=lg&icep_item=290537119765 These fakes are easy to spot because the Chinese counterfeiters were too lazy to make any changes to the reverse die except for the date. There is a whole range of Moscow roubles, 1742–1755, using this same reverse. This fraud has been reported to eBay but it is unlikely that anything will be done. shifaragallery is an eBay “top-rated seller."
  14. The whole matter of proofs is an interesting one. It is quite possible for uncirculated pieces to exist in what is supposed to be a proof-only issue. When proofs are struck the rule is that only the best pieces go to collectors (or the Emperor &&), leaving the less well-struck pieces to be destroyed at year’s end or released to circulation. It is also quite possible for such pieces, rather than being melted, to leave the Mint via some high-ranking official or even the Grand Duke, who might well have picked up these remainders at his pleasure, for distribution to friends. The above comments are based on what is known to have happened in the U.S. but a mint is a mint and I doubt that much of a difference existed in world mints of the 19th and early 20th centuries. There is also the possibility of poorly-struck proofs being issued in sets due to carelessness on the part of employees at the Mint. The problem is that we really do not know the exact details, for example, of the proof-only issues.
  15. My opinion is that this is a coincidence. An odd one to be sure, but a coincidence. The defects, although in the same location, are not identical. I looked at my database of 10 kopeck pieces and found several with planchet defects, though not in this exact spot.
×
×
  • Create New...