WCO Posted February 20, 2007 Report Share Posted February 20, 2007 I never said that there are not finnish proof. But there are only Novodel ("experiment" coins): 25p 1872 and 1898. Again, your information is wrong, and since you use wrong information you unable to accept the rest. Many dates, almost entire Finnish date run are known in Proof. ... You know opinion by Tuukka Talvio: He practically said that there are not proof coins before 1917. PP is a polier platte = mirror surface. ... No, I absolutely don't see that or how Mr. Talvio said that there were NO Proofs before 1917. This is absolutely and entirely not truth. He did not say that. PP is Polier Platte = "mirror surface" and this was used to describe Proofs, and this is still in use in Germany the same as word Proof in America. ...We (both you and I) clear understand all about info from modern official documents from Central Bank of Russia. .... Then tell me WHY Finish and Russian sources completely DENY existence of Proofs during Imperial time? I again stress that without answering this question you will NOT move anywhere. And you dismissed this question again. I want to use example from a different country to illustrate something. So please do not think it is irrelevant to our discassion, it is pretty much relevant. Could you tell me, how Russian Proof coins were called in German catalogues back then and now? I hope you will see they were called PP back then and now. Do you using this fact can say THERE ARE NO PROOF COINS in Russian Imperial numismatics? Can you say that ALL Rusian Proofs are Novodels? With Finland is the same. best regards, WCO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCO Posted February 20, 2007 Report Share Posted February 20, 2007 Any can check this genuine "proof" coin.http://www.northeastcoin.com/popupcontaine...=/inventory.jsp This is lot 1976 from sale 36 from goldbergcoin. If this coin was minted as high quality coin WHY it was minted by broken dies???? Both "1" has broken right down "leg". Can mint director provide this broken coin for VIP collectors? I think that this is a regular coin. Questions to WCO: Are you think that proof coins was minted as regular coins in Helsinki mint ? Or this is not regular coin? The lower part of "1" in the date of that 1 Pennia CAN NOT BE BROKEN! It is dented on a die, there is nothing to brake. But what you noticed is something VERY DIFFERENT. And you noticed details that diffirintiate this SPECIALLY PREPARED PROOF die from regular strike. Thank you. A very good point to illustrate everything I was saying above. WCO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dk_spb Posted February 20, 2007 Report Share Posted February 20, 2007 The lower part of "1" in the date of that 1 Pennia CAN NOT BE BROKEN! It is dented on a die, there is nothing to brake. But what you noticed is something VERY DIFFERENT. And you noticed details that diffirintiate this SPECIALLY PREPARED PROOF die from regular strike. Thank you. A very good point to illustrate everything I was saying above. I think you always win in poker? Yes, you absolutely right, all 1 penni coins with both legs (left and right) at lower part of "1" in the date - all these coins is defect. Only coins with missed right legs are good!!!! There many regular coins with defect "legs" in the date because this is typical defect for finnish coins. May be all of it was a proof ? Your verison that it is SPECIALLY prepared or specially made dies for proof mint is perfectly Why use good dies for proof minting if it possible prepared dies by removing same details. PP in 1913 was a REGULAR coins minted by fresh dies. Proof techniques (few strikes by special made dies) don't use in Finland before 1917. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dk_spb Posted February 20, 2007 Report Share Posted February 20, 2007 Then tell me WHY Finish and Russian sources completely DENY existence of Proofs during Imperial time? I again stress that without answering this question you will NOT move anywhere. And you dismissed this question again. I don't know that russian sources DENY existence of proof coins. Many document was lost in revolution and wars. Also as I know many documents about minting still top secured in Russia. And (as I know) nobody who have access to this documents not DENY existence of RUSSIAN proofs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dk_spb Posted February 20, 2007 Report Share Posted February 20, 2007 WCO, could you provide high quality picture of any finnish silver proof coin (any source; may be internet link) But not 25p 1872 and 1898 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCO Posted February 20, 2007 Report Share Posted February 20, 2007 I think you always win in poker? Yes, you absolutely right, all 1 penni coins with both legs (left and right) at lower part of "1" in the date - all these coins is defect. Only coins with missed right legs are good!!!! There many regular coins with defect "legs" in the date because this is typical defect for finnish coins. May be all of it was a proof ? Your verison that it is SPECIALLY prepared or specially made dies for proof mint is perfectly Why use good dies for proof minting if it possible prepared dies by removing same details. PP in 1913 was a REGULAR coins minted by fresh dies. Proof techniques (few strikes by special made dies) don't use in Finland before 1917. I dismiss your sarcasm for now and continue since I think you want to find the answers and not just "play games" with me. Again that 1916 Pennia have nothing broken. This is as made. And some other MS 1 Pennia coins are made differently, with both legs at the bottom of number "1". So your statement that the coin was made with "broken dies" is false. Die brakes look very much different on coins, just so you know. They look as irregular raised lines, usually between letters and/or details. --------------- WCO, could you provide high quality picture of any finnish silver proof coin (any source; may be internet link)But not 25p 1872 and 1898 I do not have high resolution pictures of such coins in my possession. And I do not want to waste my time and try to find them on the internet. But I can give you a source that you can ask about pictures and also you may ask opinion on the issue about Finnish Proofs and how long that dealer calls them as such. Worldwide coins of California, James Elmen. He did MANY pictures of such coins for his catalogues, and he used to sell MANY such coins. I don't know that russian sources DENY existence of proof coins.Many document was lost in revolution and wars. Also as I know many documents about minting still top secured in Russia. And (as I know) nobody who have access to this documents not DENY existence of RUSSIAN proofs. Приложение 2 к Инструкции Банка России N 33 "О порядке выпуска в обращение в Российской Федерации памятных монет" от 27 декабря 1995 г. КЛАССИФИКАТОР КАЧЕСТВА МОНЕТ ..... "Пруф" и улучшенное качество чеканки - это специальные категории новейшей технологии монетного производства последних десятилетий, используемые для выпуска, главным образом, коллекционных монет". ..... Again you did not answer why this text is stated in this official instruction of Russian Central Bank. It means Proofs are made only at modern times. In other words, they could not be made just a few decades ago. This is the same as official position of Finnish mint! If you answer it you will open your eyes, if you can't answer this there is nothing to discuss. THIS IS THE KEY to understanding the issue! Answer this! WCO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dk_spb Posted February 21, 2007 Report Share Posted February 21, 2007 Again you did not answer why this text is stated in this official instruction of Russian Central Bank. I can not help you if you try to read our modern official instruction word by word. Welcome to live to Russia and in 5-10 years you will clear understand all about these "instruction". This instruction was wrote for marketing purposes: people who sell commemorative coins must understand that they sell super-puper nodern technologies. There are many technical and historical error in documents like this. WCO, we discuss about finnish proofs about year. You as usually said that there are many finnish proof in copper, silver, gold, but as usually "I do not have high resolution pictures of such coins in my possession. And I do not want to waste my time and try to find them on the internet." I respect your position but it is very hard to understand it for me. I think my position is clear to understand: 1) There are not any genuine finnish proof before 1917 (exclude experimental 25p 1872 and 1898; but I think that it was minted later 1917). 2) All coins was graded as PF is a novodel (like 20M gold) or mirror surfaced coins (also PP in German). But this is correct only if we mean that PF is: 1) coins was minted by specially made or specially prepared dies (specailly, not as usually, polished AND/OR chemically ethed for matte AND/OR other) 2) coins was minted by special (non-regular) minting process (few stike and other) If you can provide any pictures of silver PF coins we will check which dies was used for minting. May be it was another version of experimental coins. About "legs" for "1": you can read any modern finnish catalog with coins varietes. You can easy find that absent legs is a standard defect of dies (master dies) for finnish coins after some use. I can not agree that it is a special modification for PF dies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Sisu Posted February 21, 2007 Report Share Posted February 21, 2007 Oh my, and I thought no one beside a few ever visited the Finnish section. This discussion has gone beyond my area of expertise (if one could even call it expertise), so I cannot answer these questions authoritatively. However, I would like to point out one part of Tuukka Talvio's text that WCO has posted: "special strikings were produced for collectors with fresh dies". I understand this to mean that these special coins were nonetheless produced with the same normal planchets, dies, and striking techniques that produced the average circulated coins that are in my collection -just earlier strikes. However, this is not to say that since these coins were going to be "show" pieces for important people, that the striking process was not slowed down and carried out a bit more carefully. My general understanding is that most Finnish coins of this era that could be considered "proof" are in fact early strikes on new dies and consequently give the appearance of being proof-like. I would still call these coins MS with a special description: mirror-like finish. My opinion here is that the confusion is a result of inductive logic being used. Assumptions are being made about the striking technique on the basis of what the resulting strike looks like. It looks like a proof, it must have been a special proof. My amateur guess is that most proof-like (PP or whatever other term one prefers) is a coincidental early strike with fresh dies as Mr. Talvio writes, and not because of any special dies, planchets, striking technique, etc involved. Now, whether some coins were struck with special/unique dies at a date other than what is on the coin -outside of test strikes- I cannot say. Hopefully I can get some authoritative assistance. ...----------------- Dear Dr. Tuukka Talvio, I'm sorry to bother you again. This is my last question to you about Finnish coins. I know that you are very busy, but your opinion, as the only one qualified expert in Finnish coins, is very important to me. According to Finnish mint records, gold coins 10 and 20 MARKKAA were never minted in PROOF state. Meanwhile, NGC (NUMISMATIC GUARANTEE CORPORATION of AMERICA) graded at least 2 gold coins from Finland as PROOF. I'm a little confused. Can you explain this contradiction? Is this because of not good qualification of graders here in US, or Proof gold coins were, indeed, minted? Thanks a lot for your help Sincerely yours, Dr..... -------------------------------------- Dear Dr........., The mint of Finland has issued proof coins 'officially' only since the 1990s. However, already in the late 19th century special strikings were produced for collectors with fresh dies. At that time persons like the Grand Duke Georgii Mikhailovich and I. I. Tolstoi ordered sets of coins from the mint, and when Tolstoi's coins were sold by A. Hess in 1913, many of the Finnish pieces were described as 'polierte Platte' which is usually translated as 'proof'. So you can say that proof coins were indeed minted in Finland but only for special purposes, and with a technique that was less developed than today. Best wishes, Tuukka Talvio ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dk_spb Posted February 21, 2007 Report Share Posted February 21, 2007 However, I would like to point out one part of Tuukka Talvio's text that WCO has posted: "special strikings were produced for collectors with fresh dies". I understand this to mean that these special coins were nonetheless produced with the same normal planchets, dies, and striking techniques that produced the average circulated coins that are in my collection -just earlier strikes. However, this is not to say that since these coins were going to be "show" pieces for important people, that the striking process was not slowed down and carried out a bit more carefully. I have read letter from T.Talvio as Sir Sisu. But Mr.Talvio work for state museum (like "official person") and he can not anwer YES/NO for so important question. He need leave small backdoor: "described as 'polierte Platte' which is usually translated as 'proof'. So you can say that proof coins were indeed minted in Finland". Usually translated as 'proof' but aslo mean 'mirror surface' If you have translated as 'proof' - you can say about finnish proofs. But these coins was minted by standard process with standard fresh dies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCO Posted February 22, 2007 Report Share Posted February 22, 2007 I have read letter from T.Talvio as Sir Sisu.But Mr.Talvio work for state museum (like "official person") and he can not anwer YES/NO for so important question. He need leave small backdoor: "described as 'polierte Platte' which is usually translated as 'proof'. So you can say that proof coins were indeed minted in Finland". Usually translated as 'proof' but aslo mean 'mirror surface' If you have translated as 'proof' - you can say about finnish proofs. But these coins was minted by standard process with standard fresh dies. Interesting. Within a short letter of Mr. Talvio many different people were able to find so many different meanings. Some even found that "... proof coins were indeed NOT minted in Finland..." when in reality it said otherwise. And no one paid attention to this part of Mr. Talvio's answer: "... with a technique that was less developed than today". Not a single comment about this or how it is related to our current discussion. WCO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dk_spb Posted February 22, 2007 Report Share Posted February 22, 2007 Interesting. Within a short letter of Mr. Talvio many different people were able to find so many different meanings. Some even found that "... proof coins were indeed NOT minted in Finland..." when in reality it said otherwise. And no one paid attention to this part of Mr. Talvio's answer: "... with a technique that was less developed than today". Not a single comment about this or how it is related to our current discussion. WCO Dear WCO, You can read this letter how you like, but I have discussed this letter with Mr Talvio. He said that he has wrote about minting by standard fresh dies on standard equipment. You can try read between line of letter or another way. Easy way to understand your mistake - ask Mr. Talvio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCO Posted February 22, 2007 Report Share Posted February 22, 2007 Dear WCO, You can read this letter how you like, but I have discussed this letter with Mr Talvio. He said that he has wrote about minting by standard fresh dies on standard equipment. You can try read between line of letter or another way. Easy way to understand your mistake - ask Mr. Talvio. So you did ask him as I suggested several months back? OK, so did you ask him in person or in writing? If in writing, would you be so kind to present here his answer, and not your interpretation of his answer? Thank you in advance. WCO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldman Posted February 22, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2007 (Oldman @ Jan 29 2007, 06:40 PM) Dear Sir Sisu, thank you very much for your very detailed message. I've come across (in my old coin album) 25 pennia in clear proof. I can not make a photo as I sent it to a grading company to see what they think about it. I'm very well aware of the lack of decent information on this topic but will post the results. Thanks a lot, I look forward to it! Dear Sir Sisu, I have an interesting news. That 25 pennia that I have mentioned above received ......Proof 65 Cameo ! Interesting, isn't it ? Best regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCO Posted February 22, 2007 Report Share Posted February 22, 2007 ... That 25 pennia that I have mentioned above received ......Proof 65 Cameo ! Interesting, isn't it ? ... Dear Oldman, this is amazing coin, congratulations! And what date is it? WCO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldman Posted February 22, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2007 Dear Oldman, this is amazing coin, congratulations! And what date is it? WCO I'll keep it in secret Sorry, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCO Posted February 22, 2007 Report Share Posted February 22, 2007 I'll keep it in secret Sorry, As you wish. But let me guess what date is that. How about 1875? Is this the date that as states dk_spb never existed in Proof? I hope those are good news for dk_spb. May be one day quantity of such coins will become "quality", Finnish Proofs will be accepted. WCO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dk_spb Posted February 23, 2007 Report Share Posted February 23, 2007 So you did ask him as I suggested several months back? OK, so did you ask him in person or in writing? If in writing, would you be so kind to present here his answer, and not your interpretation of his answer? In person. After our discuss on russian forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dk_spb Posted February 23, 2007 Report Share Posted February 23, 2007 I hope those are good news for dk_spb I need say again: there are 25p experimental proof coins minted after 1917. Well known 1872 and 1898. May be there are other dates. This coins have non standard obverse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldman Posted February 24, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2007 I need say again: there are 25p experimental proof coins minted after 1917.Well known 1872 and 1898. May be there are other dates. This coins have non standard obverse. To dk_spb: The year of this coin is different, I'll send you the scans early next week. Also, I'm not really sure what you mean when you always mention that "the coins have non-standard obverse". As far as I'm concerned, 25 pennia coins from 1873 until 1917 had the same exact design. So, 25 pennia, say, 1875 would look alike 25 pennia 1915, wouldn't they ? Or am I missing anything ? Best Regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Sisu Posted February 25, 2007 Report Share Posted February 25, 2007 To dk_spb: The year of this coin is different, I'll send you the scans early next week. Also, I'm not really sure what you mean when you always mention that "the coins have non-standard obverse". As far as I'm concerned, 25 pennia coins from 1873 until 1917 had the same exact design. So, 25 pennia, say, 1875 would look alike 25 pennia 1915, wouldn't they ? Or am I missing anything ? Best Regards, The side with the eagle went through some modifications through the years, resulting in some differing types. I do not have good pics of my own but a Finnish collector has a nice set of images of Finnish coins posted on his website. For easy comparison's sake I have posted two of the pics here. Note the size of the eagle in relation to the rim for example -most noteably in the sceptre and tail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dk_spb Posted February 26, 2007 Report Share Posted February 26, 2007 There are two types 1873-1902 and 1906-1917. Differences also in size of coat of arms (shield and crown of grand duke). Small coat of arms since 1906. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldman Posted February 26, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2007 There are two types 1873-1902 and 1906-1917.Differences also in size of coat of arms (shield and crown of grand duke). Small coat of arms since 1906. Ok, let me check. As I promised, I'll post the photos later. Best regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dk_spb Posted February 26, 2007 Report Share Posted February 26, 2007 Ok. Thank you in advance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldman Posted February 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2007 Ok.Thank you in advance #1 POST Dear dk_spb! I guess I'll ruin your theory in a minute. Here are the photos of of two coins: 25 pennia 1875-s and 25 pennia 1916-s. I should admit, you were right when you stated that the eagles are slightly different. You can easily see that on the scans. However, according to your theory , there were no Finnish proofs made until after 1910s. So, the eagles on these two coins should be identical. Right ? Wrong ! THEY ARE DIFFERENT. Any ideas ? *this is 1916 25 pennia. Trully yours, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldman Posted February 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2007 Ok.Thank you in advance POST #2 this is 1875 25 pennia Thanks, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.