gxseries Posted September 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2007 banivechi if it helps, I'll add the weight of the two examples that I have but both years UNFORTUNATELY have no years on them - worn 20.9, 21.0g (+-0.1g variance) Sorry, don't have a 0.01g scale Igors by any chance, is your coin reedged? 17.39g seems pretty low unless there happened to be a wide variance that I didn't know. Will be looking forward to your image of the overstruck para coin I've checked the weight of other 1 kopek examples but found it an almost useless test to do with. I only have one Catherine II kopeks compared to 10 other examples of Elizabeth kopeks that I have. Most of them are over 8.5grams with two examples at 7.0 and 6.9g but they are heavily corroded. The 1757 1k overstruck on the Swedish 1 ore is in a much better condition and that is 10.3g. Unfortunately because of the bad corrosion of the coin that I am showing, it just weighs a miserable 7.5g Steve, if it really helps, I will send this coin to your place postpaid as well as for it's return. There is nothing more I can do with my abilities as well as the limited resources that I have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IgorS Posted September 16, 2007 Report Share Posted September 16, 2007 Igors by any chance, is your coin reedged? 17.39g seems pretty low unless there happened to be a wide variance that I didn't know. Will be looking forward to your image of the overstruck para coin qxseries, Bitkin show the weight of 2 para to be 14.60-22.23g, and 1 para 9.36-12.05. The edge is ornamented. Steve, I hope you are not waiting for my written permission to use my coin in your database. But in case you are, permission granted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted September 16, 2007 Report Share Posted September 16, 2007 Igors and Squirrel, would you happen to have larger images of your coins shown? I'm very interested to see especially the mintmark location - mine seems to be in a slant position, i.e. not in a straight line. I can email you the scans, full size.. send me pm.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banivechi Posted September 16, 2007 Report Share Posted September 16, 2007 qxseries, Bitkin show the weight of 2 para to be 14.60-22.23g, and 1 para 9.36-12.05. The edge is ornamented. My lightest 2 para coins are 14,45 and 14,50 grams (both 1773) and the heaviest is 21,82 grams (1772) 1 para I have between 12,62 and 8,69 grams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE MOULDING Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 qxseries, Bitkin show the weight of 2 para to be 14.60-22.23g, and 1 para 9.36-12.05. The edge is ornamented.Steve, I hope you are not waiting for my written permission to use my coin in your database. But in case you are, permission granted Thanks Igor! I've been out all day, so I was waiting, but in an undisclosed location Thanks again Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE MOULDING Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 :Steve, if it really helps, I will send this coin to your place postpaid as well as for it's return. There is nothing more I can do with my abilities as well as the limited resources that I have. Thanks for the offer! I'm going to work with your images a little first. If I need to see the real thing I may take you up on your offer and there are some experts here in New York (some on this board) who I'd also show it to if needed. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted September 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2007 Here are a few more interesting coins from the lot: This is the more unusual denomination above the Moscow emblem. I was looking for a Poor grade example for the past few years but could not justify the mad prices these days. Glad I found it in this lot The bizarre thing about this coin is that while the obverse is struck downwards, the reverse is struck upwards - that's pretty wonky And here is another unusual feature of combining two elements in an overstruck - if this was in a higher grade, it would look VERY interesting: Unfortunately the year is not viewable on that one. And lastly this wierd coin: Is this supposed to be the denomination above the Moscow emblem or below? I was thinking it is below as most overstruck coins are supposed to have the denomination at below but the edge so far with it's crust does not seem to have a net edge. I'll probably have to try to move a fair amount of the crust from the edge to really confirm if it does have a net edge or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted September 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2007 More interesting 1 kopek finds: 1758/7? 1760/57? Another 1760/57? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted September 21, 2007 Report Share Posted September 21, 2007 a challenge indeed! can you isolate and enlarge the suspected overdates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted September 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2007 Does anyone have an example of a 1757 EM 1 kopek by the way for comparsion? I would like to know where the mintmark location is at. Seems like I do have an example of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted September 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2007 Here is one crappy attempt: You can view the original files here: http://www.gxseries.com/temp/R1025381.JPG http://www.gxseries.com/temp/R1025382.JPG http://www.gxseries.com/temp/R1025383.JPG http://www.gxseries.com/temp/R1025384.JPG Wish I knew a better way to photograph them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted September 21, 2007 Report Share Posted September 21, 2007 Does anyone have an example of a 1757 EM 1 kopek by the way for comparsion? I would like to know where the mintmark location is at. Seems like I do have an example of it. no mintmarks on Elizabeth EM coins.... just EM lettered edges on the wings on clouds kopek.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted September 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2007 squirrel, if you take a look at Uzdenikov 2nd edition, no. 2579, it does mention as " 4) EM, with emblem of Moscow, VIII-A/a" Appearently it only appears for that year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted September 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2007 Here are two more interesting kopeks: Clipped Double struck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted September 21, 2007 Report Share Posted September 21, 2007 squirrel, if you take a look at Uzdenikov 2nd edition, no. 2579, it does mention as " 4) EM, with emblem of Moscow, VIII-A/a" Appearently it only appears for that year. UZD 2579 is a Novodel.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted October 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2007 There might be an overdate on the 95 afterall: I do see the 8 on the 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE MOULDING Posted October 1, 2007 Report Share Posted October 1, 2007 There might be an overdate on the 95 afterall: I do see the 8 on the 5. On the Kopeck? That's a good sign! It should show 8/5 as it's known they used 1788 dies. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted October 1, 2007 Report Share Posted October 1, 2007 I feel like im looking at one of those computer mosaic painting that were trendy a few years back, the ones where everyone else sees the "sailboat" except me... gx, can you do a little photoshop and outline the digits for me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted October 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2007 This is what I believe it to be: Original raw file: Outlined digit: Another raw file: Outlined background: Hopefully you can see what I am trying to explain By the way, this forum automatically resizes the pictures, so please click on the bar that says "Click to view full image" to have a better view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustin43160 Posted October 1, 2007 Report Share Posted October 1, 2007 hmmm you have better eyes than me!!!! poor copper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted October 1, 2007 Report Share Posted October 1, 2007 Thanks Gx, i can see the areas much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted October 1, 2007 Report Share Posted October 1, 2007 So this coin, GX, then was overstruck on a 1 kopek of Elizabeth, and missed the 1762 overstriking. Do you see any trace of a 1762 2 kopek in there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted October 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 squirrel, I think it's already a miracle that the underlying 1788 kopek survived from the impact of overstriking, made much worse under the bad corrosion that pretty much ate up a fair amount of the surface for any useful analysis. I wouldn't doubt that it might have been a 1762 2 kopek under that layer but this is already beyond any standard ways of viewing it - I think it will require a x-ray scan Oddly enough, I have never seen an overstruck coin with a clip. Not too sure when the clip happened. Steve, do you think it's really the 1795/88 1 kopek over 1788 1 kopek after viewing the pictures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 squirrel, I think it's already a miracle that the underlying 1788 kopek survived from the impact of overstriking, made much worse under the bad corrosion that pretty much ate up a fair amount of the surface for any useful analysis. I wouldn't doubt that it might have been a 1762 2 kopek under that layer but this is already beyond any standard ways of viewing it - I think it will require a x-ray scan Oddly enough, I have never seen an overstruck coin with a clip. Not too sure when the clip happened. Steve, do you think it's really the 1795/88 1 kopek over 1788 1 kopek after viewing the pictures? my point is that it would be more likely to see traces of the 1762 overstiking under there, which would obliterate the 1758 coin, but since we can see (more or less) the 1758 crown and date, perhaps this coin missed being overstruck in 1762, thus was a 1 kopek all along, and never got the 1 year promotion to 2 kopek still quite interesting to investigate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted October 15, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2007 What are the chances of this: Can I dream? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.