Specimen Strike in Russian Numismatics?

[grivna1726]

1. Proof is sharper -- details are better defined. It appears that the planchette was polished, because the top surface of the letters seems somewhat polished. Color is differed -- bronze red, whish, according to some opinions signifies an original.

 

2. Specimen is brown. The planchette was probably rough, as it is reflected by top surface of letters. Details are less defined. Missing dot in SPB (not even a trace under huge magnification) Field is at least PL, which shows that the die was probably polished.

 

 

 

That sounds logical to me.

[BKB]

OK, so from your observations looks as:

 

1. For striking of Proofs planshets had to be polished, and Specimens not necessarily were struck on polished planshets.

 

2. Also details, Proofs had exceptional details due not to only exceptional preparation of dies, but also due to two or more blows of a press that struck them and Specimens could have still sharp details but slightly off, even somewhat weaker strike on highest points of relief may be present.

 

3. How about quality of surfaces, where seems to be more smoother (better polished) surface? I think that your Proof have smoother surfaces than Specimen. However, both may sometimes exibit extensive die polishing.

 

I am right here to explaining your observations?

 

WCO

 

Proof does have smoother surface as compared to specimen, which can also be explained by polished vs. unpolished planchette.

 

This is strange, however, because from the definitions, Specimen should be of superior quality. In addition, how do you explain that missing dot?

[WCO]

There is more to that, plus you have to see Specimens that look more like MS coins. The differences there are super sharp details plus often higher relief of details. Specimens have to have their own dies, so put a Specimen and a similar business strike side by side you will see the differences there too. If trying to distinguish Proof or not you look for a Proof dies, same for Specimens - you look for a specially made dies that struck a Specimen. For Specimens that look like MS coins a lint mark most likely be found on a Specimen, but extremely rare on MS coin. Sometimes also edges of Specimens are made differently from both Proofs and MS coins.

 

I hope it all helps.

 

Best regards,

 

WCO

[WCO]

Proof does have smoother surface as compared to specimen, which can also be explained by polished vs. unpolished planchette.

 

This is strange, however, because from the definitions, Specimen should be of superior quality. In addition, how do you explain that missing dot?

 

The missing dot? Even though you are unable to see difference between the two dies they are actually two different dies. Consider the dot is there. Can you say for sure that the two coins struck with two different dies? If yes, then in addition to that one had a dot and another did not. I can not take a close look on both coins the same as you, just know that dies that struck the two coins had to be different indeed.

 

And no, Specimens should have lesser quality since this technology is older. Specimens were struck in US before early Proofs came to existence. And I think something similar is true for Russian coins (even though do not have that info).

 

WCO

[BKB]

And no, Specimens should have lesser quality since this technology is older. Specimens were struck in US before early Proofs came to existence. And I think something similar is true for Russian coins (even though do not have that info).

 

WCO

 

Aha, do you mean that Specimens were no longer made after the development and utilization of proof technology in Russia for presentation pieces? Thus, we have to come to an agreement or find information on the year in which that change was made. Then, no coin can be a specimen coin if made after that date.

[Oldman]

Aha, do you mean that Specimens were no longer made after the development and utilization of proof technology in Russia for presentation pieces? Thus, we have to come to an agreement or find information on the year in which that change was made. Then, no coin can be a specimen coin if made after that date.

 

Wrong assumption.

First Russian proof coins were minted in the first quarter of XIX century. Your Specimen is a little older. I still insist on my theory about "made-for-presentation-or-collectors" examples, can be both MS strikes or Proofs.

[BKB]

Wrong assumption.

First Russian proof coins were minted in the first quarter of XIX century. Your Specimen is a little older. I still insist on my theory about "made-for-presentation-or-collectors" examples, can be both MS strikes or Proofs.

 

First, I am just restating a quoted message to make it usable.

 

Second, your theory (voiced on page 1) does not have any logical support. You simply state that "All Specimens are Novodels."

 

This is the structure of your argument, as it appears:

 

1. My Pre-Petrine gold is graded as Specimens, AND

 

2. All of my Pre-Petrine gold coins are Novodels, THUS

 

3. All Specimens are Novodels.

 

Your example only proves that some novodels are graded as Specimens. It surely does not follow from your example that all Specimens are Novodels. Such logic is fallacious -- the premise does not necessitate the conclusion. You forget another premise -- that most novodels are not graded as specimens.

 

 

Finally, who said that your coins are, or my coin is a Specimen Strike to begin with,- PCGS, NGC? Who cares what they say about Russian coins. I keep it in the slab for protection. Seems to be the most secure way.

 

The writing on the slab is only good to sell the coin to an amateur or to sell it for more over the internet -- it gives the buyer a wrong sence of security. I only referred to it to make a point and to find out the meaning placed into it by a grading company. I do not think I have been enlightened yet. The last statement of WCO, however, allowed for some objectivity in the judgment, that is why I restated it in a way that would allow us to make some sort of an objective distinction. I just needed confirmation.

[WCO]

First, I am just restating a quoted message to make it usable.

 

Second, your theory (voiced on page 1) does not have any logical support. You simply state that "All Specimens are Novodels."

 

This is the structure of your argument, as it appears:

 

1. My Pre-Petrine gold is graded as Specimens, AND

 

2. All of my Pre-Petrine gold coins are Novodels, THUS

 

3. All Specimens are Novodels.

 

Your example only proves that some novodels are graded as Specimens. It surely does not follow from your example that all Specimens are Novodels. Such logic is fallacious -- the premise does not necessitate the conclusion. You forget another premise -- that most novodels are not graded as specimens.

Finally, who said that your coins are, or my coin is a Specimen Strike to begin with,- PCGS, NGC? Who cares what they say about Russian coins. I keep it in the slab for protection. Seems to be the most secure way.

 

The writing on the slab is only good to sell the coin to an amateur or to sell it for more over the internet -- it gives the buyer a wrong sence of security. I only referred to it to make a point and to find out the meaning placed into it by a grading company. I do not think I have been enlightened yet. The last statement of WCO, however, allowed for some objectivity in the judgment, that is why I restated it in a way that would allow us to make some sort of an objective distinction. I just needed confirmation.

 

BKB, I do not know what else I have to do to "enlighten" you

 

Well, now you also noticed that oldman provided a wrong statement due to his untrue logical assumptions. I am glad you did. And it is clear now why I disagreed to his statement.

 

By saying that Specimens were struck in US before early Proofs came to existence I did not mean to say about entire world. If talking about worldwide, than the first world's Proof was a coin struck in Great Britain during times of Cromwell in 1650's. And I do not know of Specimens this old, or what coin is the first world's Specimen.

 

Specimens were "popular" in Canada and Switzerland just 50-100 years ago, but known for almost all large countries I can think of that had their own mints. In many countries Specimens were made at the same time as Proofs. So time is not important. Each mint decided on his own what to do, Proofs, Specimens or both. It was because of machinery that they had or just administrative design.

 

WCO

[BKB]

BKB, I do not know what else I have to do to "enlighten" you

 

WCO

 

Try to stick to the subject for starters. . I asked a specific question, about specific country. I do not think Socratic method of education is appropriate in this instance. In "Lint mark" topic you implied that you know something about Specimen Strikes in Russian imperial numismatics. You also implied that this body of knowledge will soon be accepted by Russian numismatists, or something like that. If you believe that Specimen stands for coins of "improved quality" (улучшенного качества) -- then, just say it and be done with it. If you have the information -- then, either share it or say that you are not willing to do so.

 

I do not care about Canada or Switzerland, unless that information is applicable to the discussion at hand. In you previous post you stated that specimen technology is older than proof technology. Now you state that the oldest proof was minted in 1650's and you do not know of the specimen strike that is so old. Would you not agree that these statements are contradictory?

 

The fact that oldman's theory is not rooted in logic, does not make you right or him wrong. Oldman states that all Specimens are Novodels. You say that this is wrong. Timofei states that there are no Specimens in Russian numismatics, and that the terms presently used are sufficient to describe any strike. You say that this is also wrong. However, I still cannot find your personal position or theory on the subject. So, if you want to enlighten me, please present your theory. So far, you have offered a number of circumlocutory, self-serving at best, statements, and a couple of articles not on point. You have also provided some information that is not promoting our progress to enlightenment on the subject.

 

How about starting with clearly defining your personal theory.

[Oldman]

.....

The fact that oldman's theory is not rooted in logic, does not make you right or him wrong. Oldman states that all Specimens are Novodels. You say that this is wrong. Timofei states that there are no Specimens in Russian numismatics, and that the terms presently used are sufficient to describe any strike. You say that this is also wrong. However, I still cannot find your personal position or theory on the subject. So, if you want to enlighten me, please present your theory. So far, you have offered a number of circumlocutory, self-serving at best, statements, and a couple of articles not on point. You have also provided some information that is not promoting our progress to enlightenment on the subject.

 

How about starting with clearly defining your personal theory.

 

 

I agree with this summarization. I only wanted to add that I kind of agree with Timofei with a slight addition - ORIGINALLY there was no Specimen in Russian numismatics; this is pretty modern invention. In other words, when the coins were minted they were minted as high quality, persentation-type product. The bottom line: at that point the word Specimen did not exist in Russian numismatics. That explains why Mikhailovich and Petrov/Ilin NEVER used it.

[WCO]

... I do not care about Canada or Switzerland, unless that information is applicable to the discussion at hand. .....

 

------------

If you did not notice, at the beginning of the thread I told, that there is "no nationality" for Specimen strike. This technology was used in many different countries. I used examples from other countries that made much more Specimen struck coins than Russia to illustrate or explain my statements. And yes, it was applicable to the discassion at hand, it's a pitty you were unable to understand it.

 

 

Try to stick to the subject for starters. . I asked a specific question, about specific country. I do not think Socratic method of education is appropriate in this instance. In "Lint mark" topic you implied that you know something about Specimen Strikes in Russian imperial numismatics. You also implied that this body of knowledge will soon be accepted by Russian numismatists, or something like that. If you believe that Specimen stands for coins of "improved quality" (улучшенного качества) -- then, just say it and be done with it. If you have the information -- then, either share it or say that you are not willing to do so.

.......

The fact that oldman's theory is not rooted in logic, does not make you right or him wrong. Oldman states that all Specimens are Novodels. You say that this is wrong. Timofei states that there are no Specimens in Russian numismatics, and that the terms presently used are sufficient to describe any strike. You say that this is also wrong. However, I still cannot find your personal position or theory on the subject. So, if you want to enlighten me, please present your theory. So far, you have offered a number of circumlocutory, self-serving at best, statements, and a couple of articles not on point. You have also provided some information that is not promoting our progress to enlightenment on the subject.

 

How about starting with clearly defining your personal theory.

 

 

I've already shared with you all the information if you did not notice. This is summary:

 

1. Specimen struck coins exist in Russian numismatics.

2. They may look close to Proof or close to MS coins.

3. They may be distinguished you know how, no reason to list it again.

4. SP - name of technology that was known in Russia and implemented at St. Petersburg mint.

5. The word "Specimen" was never used in Russia and no other single word that I know was used to describe this technology.

6. SP coins were not minted with intention for circulation, but for presentations, collectors, etc.

7. Since Novodels were minted solely for collectors or presentations (exibitions) there are many SP coins among them, but it does not mean that all SP coins are Novodels or all Novodels are SP coins.

 

 

There is nothing else.

 

What "theory" you are talking about I do not know. And STOP DEMANDING an explanation. I do not owe you any, just honestly trying to help you answer your own questions.

 

WCO

[grivna1726]

Your example only proves that some novodels are graded as Specimens.

 

 

This discussion is already very confusing and I don't wish to make it even more so, but I think it is important to point out that "specimen" and "proof" are methods of production, not grades. Grading describes the degree of preservation of a coin i.e. the amount of wear. Proof or specimen is a method of production, and is usually (always?) better than business strikes made for circulation.

 

If a proof or specimen gets some wear or other impairment, then its grade will have changed, but it will still be a proof or specimen.

 

 

 

 

 

Finally, who said that your coins are, or my coin is a Specimen Strike to begin with,- PCGS, NGC? Who cares what they say about Russian coins. I keep it in the slab for protection. Seems to be the most secure way.

 

The writing on the slab is only good to sell the coin to an amateur or to sell it for more over the internet -- it gives the buyer a wrong sence of security.

 

 

I agree. The fact that a grading company is expert in US coins does not mean that they know anything about Russian coins. If specialist Russian collectors have so much trouble with these concepts, why should it be assumed that some guy who has spent the last 6 weeks doing nothing but staring at the steps on Jefferson nickels knows any better?

[WCO]

... I think it is important to point out that "specimen" and "proof" are methods of production, not grades. Grading describes the degree of preservation of a coin i.e. the amount of wear. Proof or specimen is a method of production, and is usually (always?) better than business strikes made for circulation.

 

If a proof or specimen gets some wear or other impairment, then its grade will have changed, but it will still be a proof or specimen.

....

 

Yes, I agree with this too, just on every slab you see method of manufacture (or technology) for each coin MS, PR or SP and grade from 1 to 70. Eye appeal or special quality are sometimes noted too (Copper RD, RB, BN. Reflective fields PL, DMPL. Frosting CAM, DCAM or UCAM). Everything seems logical.

 

Of corse SP coin with signs of circulation would be below SP-60 level, but still will be the same SP.

 

 

... The fact that a grading company is expert in US coins does not mean that they know anything about Russian coins. If specialist Russian collectors have so much trouble with these concepts, why should it be assumed that some guy who has spent the last 6 weeks doing nothing but staring at the steps on Jefferson nickels knows any better?

 

This is subject of another topic, just want to say that "World coin" graders are different from "US coin" graders people and they are quite knowledgable in world coins. And I still think that Russian numismatics is a part of World numismatics and therefore should have the same concepts as the rest of the world.

 

WCO

[BKB]

------------

 

They may be distinguished you know how, no reason to list it again.

 

Now that is just beautiful

 

 

------------

 

What "theory" you are talking about I do not know. And STOP DEMANDING an explanation. I do not owe you any, just honestly trying to help you answer your own questions.

 

WCO

 

If my words sounded like a demand for an explanation to you -- that was not my intention. It should rather sound like an ultimatum like: "Say something on point, or obstain from convoluting the issue." I believe it is fair. You decided to respond to my question. Insted of providing any useful information, you have turned another topic into an exercise in futility.

 

If you, yourself, asked about Russian Business Strikes, and I would respond with a longwinded description of Proof production in the land of China, would you be happy?!

 

If you think that all you said was perfectly clear and on point, -- I believe I am too dumb to understand what you are saying. I probobly need to go and get another doctorate, but this time in Numismatics.

 

After all this I still believe that term Specimen is probably not applicable to Russian coin production.

[GHV]

Now that is just beautiful ;)

If my words sounded like a demand for an explanation to you -- that was not my intention. It should rather sound like an ultimatum like: "Say something on point, or obstain from convoluting the issue." I believe it is fair. You decided to respond to my question. Insted of providing any useful information, you have turned another topic into an exercise in futility.

 

If you, yourself, asked about Russian Business Strikes, and I would respond with a longwinded description of Proof production in the land of China, would you be happy?!

 

If you think that all you said was perfectly clear and on point, -- I believe I am too dumb to understand what you are saying. I probobly need to go and get another doctorate, but this time in Numismatics.

 

After all this I still believe that term Specimen is probably not applicable to Russian coin production.

 

 

I would like to see several specimens together and compaire... Right now we are talking about just single.

 

Youn never know may be PCGS grader employer make spell mistake and type SP instead SPM

[Timofei]

Well, I see it is a long thread and my brain cannot accept so many words in a row, no matter my 2 doctorates (one of whose is 'suma cum laude' ) Frankly speaking I tried to concentrate on the thread of the discussion but I falled asleep so many times, what a shame.

 

Apart from joking I am dying to see a single miserable example of such important issue as 'Russian specimen coin'. If we speak about historical sources my dark age of poor knowledge (or whatever Ilya said, cannot repeat, too long to memorize ) tells me of only one and single entry about such. This is the price list of SFA printed in early soviet times which gave 3 price quotes for 3 different representation of Gangut rouble обыкновенный (regular), полированный (polierte platte) and зеркальный (mirrow). Well that is printed but I do not really know what on earth that meant - (maybe PP - regular die on a polished undercoin, mirror - polished die and undercoin).

 

A! I remember famous set of 1839 - "Souvenir de St.Petersburg" - that was minted by royal order for presentation. Definitely not a business strike, definitely a production with an extra super-duper care in all repects, not even for collectors but for tsar himself. Messrs. von Gloy, Blank, Tolstoy, Hess and Goodman considered the set to be 'Polierte Platte' and\or 'proof' (what a stupidity to call polierte platte a proof, right WCO?!).... O! Again, these guys handled other coins minted in the medal department for special occasions - with completely different set of tools and hands: Reichel patterns, Konstantine rouble etc....... Too pity all these gentlemen did not have so vast and profound knowledge about numismatics, maybe they would help us to identify 'specimen'. I guess should they knew so many wording and terminology in respect to Russian coins they would mark up and sell more expensive.

[BKB]

I would like to see several specimens together and compaire... Right now we are talking about just single.

 

Youn never know may be PCGS grader employer make spell mistake and type SP instead SPM

 

I would not be surprised, we should be thankfull that they are not callin the imperial eagle a dragon.

[BKB]

Too pity all these gentlemen did not have so vast and profound knowledge about numismatics, maybe they would help us to identify 'specimen'. I guess should they knew so many wording and terminology in respect to Russian coins they would mark up and sell more expensive.

 

 

 

Sadly no NGC or PCGS around at that time. Those distinguished gentlemen could have taken a course on grading Russian coins, among other things, from US coin specialists.

[gxseries]

I'm not too sure why we should just name striking methods based on the technological strikes between other major European countries of the 1700s and latter.

 

Indeed Russia did import such minting technologies from abroad and there are periods of time when unusual experiments were done such as the copper plates striking, platinum coinages and especially the Sestroretsk ruble.

 

Consequences as of novodels were minted without much ethical thoughts have created trouble for us as there aren't any indications of how they were struck or intended to as I am aware of.

 

Perhaps, I think a more helpful discussion is how were these coins struck instead of debating of what a specimen versus proof, etc should look like although I did enjoy reading the discussion here.

 

Unfortunately I don't have much resources about the methods of striking other than Spassky - just a short review. Does anyone else know of better numismatics resources?

[BKB]

Unfortunately I don't have much resources about the methods of striking other than Spassky - just a short review. Does anyone else know of better numismatics resources?

 

There is a book which was published in 1994 in Russian. It is by Smirnov, and the name of the book roughly translates as : "With SPB mint mark" It provides a bit more information than Spassky. You can get some info about 18th century coin production.

 

It would be fun to start a topic about methods of coin production in Russia. However, we must limit it to statements that have factual basis and book reference to avoid the nonsense that transpired in this topic. I am sure that everyone should be able to learn something new.