Proof Finnish Imperial Coins

[WCO]

I will sort of do the honors.

 

I have not checked the documents myself, and in fact there may not exist any documents to give us a solid answer. I contacted Mr. Talvio and informed him about the discussion in this thread and he was kind enough to reply to a couple of questions that I posed. The following is a rough translation:

 

My question: It is understood that some special coins were struck on order for honored people. Were these struck on the same year that appear on the coin? With special dies? Or normal dies, struck the same year as is on the coin?

 

Mr Talvio's response: Grand Duke Georgii Mikhailovich ordered from Finland's State Treasury new coins for his collection. I assume they were struck with normal yet unused dies such that the resulting coins were lustrous* strikes. The correct term could be "proof-like" -as today's proof techniques did not exist then. I consider it possible that the Mint of Finland produced, at the request of collectors, pieces with dates of previously struck years, but have found no documentation of this in the archives.

 

My question: One gentleman is of the opinion that "proof" quality coins can be found for almost all years (and even for all metals: copper, silver, gold) for the Grand Duchy period. Can this be so? And are they just "coincidence" (in other words, early strikes with new dies) or were these also struck to fill an order? Or perhaps so-called "novodells"? Or struck in later years with original dies?

 

Mr Talvio's response: As I said archival documention does not exist for this, but it seems that lustrous* strikes were made, at least beginning from the end of the 1800's, for all kinds of coins. It appears that for some coins there exist even some post-strikes as becomes evident in Hannu Männistö's writings in the FNS's journal 1/1992 and 4/1992.

 

*The Finnish Numismatic Society's (FNS) current auction catalogue translates the Finnish term kiiltolyönti as proof. However this grade classification in the catalogue is used only for modern proof coins and should not be confused with the strikes outside of this scope. I have used the term lustrous as that is a more accurate translation of the Finnish root word kiilto.

 

Sir Sisu,

 

Thanks a lot, very valuable addition to this discassion.

 

However, I want to point out two things. First, "...auction catalogue translates the Finnish term kiiltolyönti as proof". But you still translated it as "lustrous strikes". Put a word "Proof" as it was provided by Mr. Talvio back and the meaning will be very different.

 

Second, I want to repeat explanation given out before, that explains HOW and even WHY Finnish society and officials explain the issue.

 

Helsinki mint official position is that they NEVER struck any Proofs prior to 1990's. This position is UNDERSTANDABLE and it is clear why Helsinki mint officials stay on this position. They just use different terminology, and in their opinion Proof is a MODERN technology of last decades. Since DIFFERENT FROM MODERN technology was used 100 years ago or so to strike coins that we today also call Proofs, therefore Helsinki mint never will admit existence of such coins. They do not admit existence of such a (Proof) technology 100 years ago on the first place. No technology, so no coins struck using this technology.

... Technology that was used to strike these coins is called Proof in 9/10 of the world, and DOES NOT called Proof in Russia and Finland.

...

 

WCO

 

Best regards,

WCO

[gxseries]

WCO, can you be a bit kinder on the fact that translating numismatic materials can be quite difficult and there are times that words don't necessarily translate word for word from one to another language? I'm sure there are some Russian words that can never be translated into English properly and vice versa.

 

Sisu did his best of translating one extremely difficult language to English - I gave up learning some Finnish words after trying to pronounce words with "ö"

 

But yes, back to the topic, I'm rather intrigued over the Finnish mint records. Did the mint officers not bother to record it down or it was a completely private business matter and hence wasn't recorded? The mystery continues...

[WCO]

WCO, can you be a bit kinder on the fact that translating numismatic materials can be quite difficult and there are times that words don't necessarily translate word for word from one to another language? I'm sure there are some Russian words that can never be translated into English properly and vice versa.

 

Sisu did his best of translating one extremely difficult language to English - I gave up learning some Finnish words after trying to pronounce words with "ö"

 

But yes, back to the topic, I'm rather intrigued over the Finnish mint records. Did the mint officers not bother to record it down or it was a completely private business matter and hence wasn't recorded? The mystery continues...

 

I am grateful to efforts and information furnished by Mr. Sisu.

 

This all is a "deja vu" of similar "discassion" about 20 years (or so) ago and about Russian coins. Back than all official opinions (russian Museums) were that there could not be Russian Imperial Proof coins since "Proof is a modern technology". Do you think there are no early Russian coins in Proof? It took over 20 years for Russia to change this opinion, it may take another 5-10 years for Finland.

 

WCO

[Oldman]

Everyone,

 

I feel like , as the "owner" of this thread, I need to thank everyone for participation and feedbacks.

It was really nice team effort and I trully appreciate that.

Again , thank you very much ,

[WCO]

There is Finland 1893-L 50 Pennia NGC PF66 Cameo just sold by Northeast Numismatics for $1750. Extensive die polishing is evedent. Anyone interested can see the pictures on their site:

 

http://www.northeastcoin.com/inventory.jsp

 

WCO

[dk_spb]

Coin forVIP collector with not centered reverse?

You really think that it was possible?

 

You can check next MiM auction

http://www.numismat.ru/cgi-bin/auction.cgi...&material=0

lot 429 (and many others for polished finnish coins)

"Polished condition".

Polished, not proof.

 

WCO: Why you think that polished=proof?

May be polished=prooflike (up to DPL Cameo)?

[Oldman]

Coin forVIP collector with not centered reverse?

You really think that it was possible?

 

Why not ? I do not see any problem here. At least, it has nothing to do with the proof condition.

You can check next MiM auction

http://www.numismat.ru/cgi-bin/auction.cgi...&material=0

lot 429 (and many others for polished finnish coins)

"Polished condition".

Polished, not proof.

 

As far as I'm concerned, this is a proof coin. The reason is really simple - there is no equivalent for English word PROOF in Russian. That's why they are still using the term "polished" which (if further developed translates into polished dies, planchets).

WCO: Why you think that polished=proof?

May be polished=prooflike (up to DPL Cameo)?

 

Even though, the question is for WCO, I'd say yes, I strongly believe that in this context polished=proof.

 

With regards from

[dk_spb]

The reason is really simple - there is no equivalent for English word PROOF in Russian.

 

[WCO]

WCO: Why you think that polished=proof?

May be polished=prooflike (up to DPL Cameo)?

 

First, I do not value much abilities of ANY and ALL Russian auction experts, even though I know many of them in person. They are good guys and good for business, but they have no idea how to GRADE coins.

 

Look at description for example of lot 312: http://www.numismat.ru/cgi-bin/auction.cgi...&material=0

 

It said in description: Рубль 1852 года, СПБ-ПА. Серебро, 20,73 г. Сохранность полированная. So they state that POLISHED is a state of preservation! How foolish not to know so simple things for biggest Russian auction. And everyone in Russia eats this!

 

And in reality coin described as such is a Proof, nothing else. Coin made with special technology which is called Proof. I hope you have no doubt that this Ruble is a Proof?

 

Let's now look back at Finnish coins: http://www.numismat.ru/cgi-bin/auction.cgi...&material=0

 

In description of many of them is written: "Сохранность полированная". Are you trying now to tell me that with EXACTLY THE SAME description Russian coin is a Proof and Finnish is PL, DMPL or whatever?

 

You got my point. All I want you to know that both Russian Rubles and Finnish coins are MADE WITH THE SAME TECHNOLOGY, that is called Proof.

 

Regards,

WCO

[Cheburgen]

First, I do not value much abilities of ANY and ALL Russian auction experts, even though I know many of them in person. They are good guys and good for business, but they have no idea how to GRADE coins.

Look at description for example of lot 312: http://www.numismat.ru/cgi-bin/auction.cgi...&material=0

It said in description: Рубль 1852 года, СПБ-ПА. Серебро, 20,73 г. Сохранность полированная. So they state that POLISHED is a state of preservation! How foolish not to know so simple things for biggest Russian auction. And everyone in Russia eats this!

And in reality coin described as such is a Proof, nothing else. Coin made with special technology which is called Proof. I hope you have no doubt that this Ruble is a Proof?

Let's now look back at Finnish coins: http://www.numismat.ru/cgi-bin/auction.cgi...&material=0

In description of many of them is written: "Сохранность полированная". Are you trying now to tell me that with EXACTLY THE SAME description Russian coin is a Proof and Finnish is PL, DMPL or whatever?

You got my point. All I want you to know that both Russian Rubles and Finnish coins are MADE WITH THE SAME TECHNOLOGY, that is called Proof.

 

Regards,

WCO

[Oldman]

First, I do not value much abilities of ANY and ALL Russian auction experts, even though I know many of them in person. They are good guys and good for business, but they have no idea how to GRADE coins.

 

Look at description for example of lot 312: http://www.numismat.ru/cgi-bin/auction.cgi...&material=0

 

It said in description: Рубль 1852 года, СПБ-ПА. Серебро, 20,73 г. Сохранность полированная. So they state that POLISHED is a state of preservation! How foolish not to know so simple things for biggest Russian auction. And everyone in Russia eats this!

 

And in reality coin described as such is a Proof, nothing else. Coin made with special technology which is called Proof. I hope you have no doubt that this Ruble is a Proof?

 

Let's now look back at Finnish coins: http://www.numismat.ru/cgi-bin/auction.cgi...&material=0

 

In description of many of them is written: "Сохранность полированная". Are you trying now to tell me that with EXACTLY THE SAME description Russian coin is a Proof and Finnish is PL, DMPL or whatever?

 

You got my point. All I want you to know that both Russian Rubles and Finnish coins are MADE WITH THE SAME TECHNOLOGY, that is called Proof.

 

Regards,

WCO

 

I have to agree with WCO.

The bottom line is:

1. TRUE Finnish Imperial proof silver coins do exist. They are pretty scarce, though.

2. Lack of proper documentation in Russia and Finland does not prove otherwise , as we all know what those countries had to go through over last 100 years.

3. As to the time of the actual minting: it is still a mute point as , again, no reliable documentation exist.

[Oldman]

Another interesting fact:

Mr V.V. kazakov in his famous book on coins of Nicholas II gives prices (!!) for .... Finnish Proof coins ! Gold, Silver and Copper...ALL OF THEM.

 

I wonder why would he do that in 2005 if there were no such coins minted ?! I know for sure that he conducted extremely thorough research and still included the coins into his book.

 

Yours,

[dk_spb]

Another interesting fact:

Mr V.V. kazakov in his famous book on coins of Nicholas II gives prices (!!) for .... Finnish Proof coins ! Gold, Silver and Copper...ALL OF THEM.

Please read preface of this book.

Kazakov wrote in preface that "Proof" is a prooflike coins.

This book it is very famous fact for a existing of finnish proofs. ;-)

But nobody read preface :-(

[Oldman]

Please read preface of this book.

Kazakov wrote in preface that "Proof" is a prooflike coins.

This book it is very famous fact for a existing of finnish proofs. ;-)

But nobody read preface :-(

 

Actually, I did read the Structure of the Catalogue chapter (p.31).

However if you read the Russian text on page 30, it says "Proof - Полированное (Proof like)" !

That's the point !

In Russian terminology (again!) Proof=Prooflike !

[Cheburgen]

What is the point in this dispute? NGC is clearly grading some coins as proof-like and some as proof.

Mr. Basok is selling or was selling at least one Finnish coin as Proof. So there is a definite difference between proof and proof-like coins. If somebody did not see Proof Finnish coins, it does not mean they do not exist.

[dk_spb]

In Russian terminology (again!) Proof=Prooflike !

 

We have another opinion about russian terminology in Russia ;-)

But may be we are the fools (as wrote WCO) in Russia and don't know russian terminology.

 

Timofei asked Mr.Kazakov about proof. Kazakov said that he don't know finnish proof coins. Only prooflike.

"Proof" in catalog - reduction form from "prooflike" (as described in text).

 

I think is a very good business call first strike coin proof and sell it as unicum.

But all finnish-russian coins (except some trials from indepence period) minted by standard dies and standard business strike process.

[WCO]

We have another opinion about russian terminology in Russia ;-)

But may be we are the fools (as wrote WCO) in Russia and don't know russian terminology.

 

Timofei asked Mr.Kazakov about proof. Kazakov said that he don't know finnish proof coins. Only prooflike.

"Proof" in catalog - reduction form from "prooflike" (as described in text).

 

I think is a very good business call first strike coin proof and sell it as unicum.

But all finnish-russian coins (except some trials from indepence period) minted by standard dies and standard business strike process.

 

dk_spb,

 

Speaking about knowing Russian terminology you have not answered why Proof Rubles and "Prooflike" Finnish coins are listed the same "Сохранность полированная" by major Russian auction. I think it is very well illustrates how "advanced" is terminology in Russia. But mostly it illustrates how little are educated even the best of the best Russian numismatists in terms of knowing accurate terminology for describing technologies and state of preservation of coins. And knowing that Kazakov thinks that "Proof" is a short of "Prooflike" tells a lot to me.

 

Regards,

WCO

[Cheburgen]

"Proof" in catalog - reduction form from "prooflike"

 

Guys, could you translate me to Russian the word prooflike. Thank you.

[WCO]

"Proof" in catalog - reduction form from "prooflike"

 

Guys, could you translate me to Russian the word prooflike. Thank you.

 

I would like to listen Russian translation and understanding of word "Prooflike" from dk_spb too.

 

WCO

[Cheburgen]

Denis, let's think this way. I see 2 people. One is dk_spb and one is dk_spb-like. Which one is real?

[dk_spb]

Denis, let's think this way. I see 2 people. One is dk_spb and one is dk_spb-like. Which one is real?

My mother born only dk_spb by standard process.

You may think about non-standard process, about dk_spb-like. But your opinion is wrong. ;-)

[dk_spb]

WCO:

I don't know why Kazakov use proof as reduced form from prooflike. You can try write your own catalog.

 

This is not first our meeting in forums. I know that you prefer don't speak about fact, but speak about stupid russian numismatist. Your origin is Russia and you always try to throw the poops to country which you leave.

 

"Сохранность полированная" is a old condition term (from time of Grand Duke Georgiy Mihailovitch).

And many people use it many years before WCO became american dealer.

Yes, I know that you prefer the grading system which allow to grade prooflike coins as proof.

 

Cheburgen

Could you say me why any finnish coins was graded as prooflike before 2000 now became proof?

Please don't repeat WCOs mistake - don't use russian coins as sample.

Finnish minting system was very different from russian (finnish mint was "copy" of belgian mint and "see" not to russian but to french mint system). And in Russia many papers was lost during wars. Other papers about minting still top secret.

 

Also "proof" coins with not centered dies is a confirmation that this was first strike when new dies was adjusted in mint machine.

[Oldman]

Could you say me why any finnish coins was graded as prooflike before 2000 now became proof?

 

I strongly believe this is a wrong assumption !

1. I do not think they were graded Proof-like

2. I do not think anyone sent them to NGC/PCGS and had them regraded from Proof-like to Proof

 

Where did you get that info?

With my pleasure,

[Cheburgen]

Denis, I asked you to translate the termin "Prooflike" to Russian. That is the first thing.

There is another thing. If Kazakov is giving some prices in his catalog for Proofs and Proofs in his catalog according to you "a reduction from Prooflike" don't you think that all coins in his catalog including russian coins also "Prooflikes"? So everytime when I have to open this catalog and see for example 10 Rouble 1903 and price for the Proof I will know that this is the price for prooflike. Or you are saying that this reduction from prooflike to proof applies in his catalog only for Finnish coins and do not applies for other coins, don't you think it's a mess? Why he did not just use the term "Polir" then instead of using Proof or Prooflike whichever you like better?

 

There is the last thing.

<I don't know why Kazakov use proof as reduced form from prooflike

 

Well, if you do not know about it anything, maybe you should stop discussing this issue at all. If you do not know why then it's not an argument and only your assumptions.

[Cheburgen]

I strongly believe this is a wrong assumption !

1. I do not think they were graded Proof-like

2. I do not think anyone sent them to NGC/PCGS and had them regraded from Proof-like to Proof

 

Where did you get that info?

With my pleasure,

 

 

Yeah, it will be better to see 2 slabs. The coin graded before 2000 as PL and the same coin graded as PF, but I do not think that he can provide this info. It's just another bluff.