1762 Medal Authenticity

[BKB]

Don't mention it. I only glad I brought this topic to light, as a few people learned a few things here. For sure, I will stay away from those things I don't understand.

 

BKB, by the way u feel like posting a scan of the 1767 EM Polushka which is also likely a copy but for reasons I don't understand.

 

Do not want to talk about fakes anymore (at least for a while) Sorry you bought that medal. Hope the seller does the right thing.

 

I will post the photos of the polushka as soon as I take them. Will try to do it soon.

[alexbq2]

This could be an electrotype or cast but is more likely a strike from a

die not yet hardened for use. It was normal in the 1700s and early 1800s

for an engraver to strike such one-sided pieces for submission to higher

authorities.

 

If the person ordering the work done was not quite satisfied with the uniface

strike in soft metal, then the artist would try to make such corrections as

could be done.

 

If this piece is an artist’s proof in soft metal (usually lead or tin) it is a rare item

as very few such pieces were made or have survived to the present time.

 

RWJ

 

Thank you Mr. Julian. I can only say that this medal is in white metal maybe a pewter based alloy. I do not have it on hand, but the impression that I got when I examined it was that of a strike. I did not see any seems on the edge or around.

 

Actually I just got it because it was inexpensive, and I liked the sticker on the back It is made by an ink pen, has an inventory number. The inscription says Founding of St. Petersburg. I thought it was made by some museum curator.

[BKB]

Each collector has to decide for himself what to collect. If you want to collect questionable galvano/electrotypes/whatever-they-are - the prices are certainly reasonable compare to more mainstream items. Who knows, along the way you might pick up a few that are mint made. I see that you are trying to build some kind of logical path here and I think I figured out why - you have some for sale.

 

Logical enough: if you do not want to buy, you must be selling.

[IgorS]

Thank you Mr. Julian. I can only say that this medal is in white metal maybe a pewter based alloy. I do not have it on hand, but the impression that I got when I examined it was that of a strike. I did not see any seems on the edge or around.

 

Actually I just got it because it was inexpensive, and I liked the sticker on the back It is made by an ink pen, has an inventory number. The inscription says Founding of St. Petersburg. I thought it was made by some museum curator.

 

I agree with RW Julian. I think they call pieces like yours "splashes". And like I said before, they were most likely "lifted" from their prior "homes".

[lennysky]

Logical enough: if you do not want to buy, you must be selling.

Agreed with that deduction.

[WCO]

... this medal is in white metal maybe a pewter based alloy.

...

 

If I am not mistaken it can not be electrotype than since electrotype uses copper electrodes.

 

WCO

[alexbq2]

If I am not mistaken it can not be electrotype than since electrotype uses copper electrodes.

 

WCO

 

It did not feel like an electrotype either. Unless I an mistaken, those have somewhat porous surfaces.

[lennysky]

Here is how the seller of the 1762 Medal responded when I requested a refund:

 

The medal was bought in Hamburg,Germany in the live auction, they don't allow to sell copies there, so my medal was original, not a copy or reproduction. Also, i was open to all questions before before you placed your bids, not after. All my auctions ae final, I'm not a store or collectors shop, I just sell part of my own collection. And even I would accept a return,of course there is no full refund. This is not a game, you bought an item from auction, you had a chance to look at the picture, asked questions and make your own decision, I didn't ask you to buy this piece. Ebay charged me fees for this auction, why do you think I have to pay that? Once again, you bought exact item you won and nothing was wrong in the description.

I hope you understand.

[alexbq2]

Here is how the seller of the 1762 Medal responded when I requested a refund:

 

The medal was bought in Hamburg,Germany in the live auction, they don't allow to sell copies there, so my medal was original, not a copy or reproduction. Also, i was open to all questions before before you placed your bids, not after. All my auctions ae final, I'm not a store or collectors shop, I just sell part of my own collection. And even I would accept a return,of course there is no full refund. This is not a game, you bought an item from auction, you had a chance to look at the picture, asked questions and make your own decision, I didn't ask you to buy this piece. Ebay charged me fees for this auction, why do you think I have to pay that? Once again, you bought exact item you won and nothing was wrong in the description.

I hope you understand.

 

File a dispute, and get the money back from PayPal.

[lennysky]

First I ask nicely second time, then I file. If he is reasonable, he will comply. I asked him for proof of the Hamburg sale as well.

[WCO]

... NGC label that states "not genuine" is good enough to return to any dealer/seller, opinion you get on a forum is not sufficient though.

...

 

I am wondering what kind of proof that this medal is not authentic you will offer to E-bay/Paypal after you open a dispute? Anyways, good luck in fighting for your money.

 

WCO

[gxseries]

Lennysky, please kindly take the issue with ebay / paypal - while this forum is open to discussion of medals, coins, counterfeits and such, this forum is not about discussing the terms of contract that is done on ebay between you and the seller.

[lennysky]

Wasn't planning in discussing it any further.

[constanius]

LOUIS PHILIPPE I ROI DE FRANCAIS. ND. Circa 1840 Bronze electrotype/galvano 51mm by Barre.

 

 

Very interesting thread as regards electrotypes/galvanos, the authenticity problem is relevant for all coin/medal collectors. Just thought it might be nice to show one in detail for the benefit of the discussion. It does show the quality that could be attained by this method. Sorry it is not russian.

[alexbq2]

LOUIS PHILIPPE I ROI DE FRANCAIS. ND. Circa 1840 Bronze electrotype/galvano 51mm by Barre.

Very interesting thread as regards electrotypes/galvanos, the authenticity problem is relevant for all coin/medal collectors. Just thought it might be nice to show one in detail for the benefit of the discussion. It does show the quality that could be attained by this method. Sorry it is not russian.

 

Does that medal ring?

[WCO]

Does that medal ring?

 

 

It should ring since it is solid copper. But it is one side of a medal. Electrotype medals does not ring because they are made as a sandwich. Copper obverse and reverse and filler inside (lead, tin, etc.). That is why waves of sound fading. Resonance that gives metallic high frequency sound is possible in some solid metals (alloys).

 

WCO

[constanius]

Does that medal ring?

 

I don't allow it access to a phone, because if I did, it would probably 'ring someone' in France and I do so hate those long-distance charges.

[alexbq2]

It should ring since it is solid copper. But it is one side of a medal. Electrotype medals does not ring because they are made as a sandwich. Copper obverse and reverse and filler inside (lead, tin, etc.). That is why waves of sound fading. Resonance that gives metallic high frequency sound is possible in some solid metals (alloys).

 

WCO

 

Got it! So unless I'm misunderstanding this technology that medal should be fairly thin?

 

I don't allow it access to a phone, because if I did, it would probably 'ring someone' in France and I do so hate those long-distance charges.

 

[lennysky]

Got it! So unless I'm misunderstanding this technology that medal should be fairly thin?

 

To WCO, I offered to have it sent to NGC at the sellers expense. He declined.

[constanius]

Got it! So unless I'm misunderstanding this technology that medal should be fairly thin?

 

Well even though the electrotype is normally a thin shell(but can be up to 3mm or more on quality pieces), it can have as deep an edge as the original medal. So if you had an electrotype of the obverse & another of the reverse of the medal when you join them together (filled or unfilled) in theory you could have a medal twice as thick as the original. In fact you make both edges half the depth, so when butted and joined together the finished medal would be the same thickness as the original medal. My pictures just show the obverse 'shell' of Barre's medal. I should add that you can make say the obverse galvano with a full depthed edge and the reverse can be fitted within the obverse and the normal tell-tale join in the edge is not there. Some of the very large exhibition medals were made by Pinches of London in that way.

 

I hope that is easy to understand. Here is a little more info:

 

The most important thing you should remember about electroforming -- it replicates minute detail. In comparison with other methods of making numismatic items: foundry casting reproduces detail down to 1/100 of an inch, die striking reproduces detail down to 1/1000th of an inch, but electroforming reproduces detail down to the width of an atom!

 

Medalmakers have a saying about this: "If it is in the model, it is in the medal." Here are some highlights in the history of electroforming:

In 1791 Italian Luigi Galvani (1737-1798), for whom "galvano" is named after, first observed electric current.

In 1800 another Italian, Alessandro Volta (1745-1827) -- "volt" is named after him -- created the first voltaic pile, a battery. Batteries were the source of the electric current until Thomas Edison developed electric generation.

In 1805 a third Italian, Luigi Brugnatelli performed the first electroplating, on two medals!

In 1837 a German Moritz Herman Jacobi (1801-1874) first developed the electrolysis process which he called "galvanoplasty."

In 1840 two British cousins George and Henry Elkington learned of Jacobi's process and patented it in England for the manufacture of silverware.

In 1844 Scovill Manufacturing in Waterbury is first to use electrolysis in America.

In 1847 the Rogers Brothers imported Elkington's process for sillverplating utensils in America and created their famed 1847 trademark.

 

In 1849 the world's most famous electrotype medal was made for the 1815 Battle of Waterloo after medallist Benedetto Pistrucci (1784-1855) had taken three decades to model it. Pinches had to electrolytically cast it because it was too large to strike with a pair of dies.

In 1851 William E. DuBois (1810-1881) begins using electrolysis at the U.S. Mint according to Kenneth Bressett. (Thanks to Julians post below: the date is now 1840 for

electrotypes done at the U.S. Mint by Chief Coiner Franklin Peale.)

In 1860 DuBois replicated the 1804 dollar by electrolysis.

[alexbq2]

Well even though the electrotype is a thin shell, it can have as deep an edge as the original medal. So if you had an electrotype of the obverse & another of the reverse of the medal when you join them together (filled or unfilled) in theory you could have a medal twice as thick as the original. In fact you make either both edges half the depth, so when butted and joined together the finished medal would be the same thickness as the original medal. My pictures just show the obverse 'shell' of Barre's medal.

 

I hope that is easy to understand

 

 

Hmm, I'll have to read up on this, but I think I do. As I understand the 2 halves are thin shells, when joined will have some emptiness between them, or will be filled with plaster or lead. So your medal half is pretty thin?

[RW Julian]

In 1851 William E. DuBois (1810-1881) begins using electrolysis at the U.S. Mint according to Kenneth Bressett.

I spoke to Mr. Bressett this past summer and the date is now 1840 for

electrotypes done at the U.S. Mint by Chief Coiner Franklin Peale.

 

RWJ

[constanius]

Hmm, I'll have to read up on this, but I think I do. As I understand the 2 halves are thin shells, when joined will have some emptiness between them, or will be filled with plaster or lead. So your medal half is pretty thin?

 

Correct, that is why I posted the pics as I know it is of interest to us all. Glad to be of help

 

 

I spoke to Mr. Bressett this past summer and the date is now 1840 for

electrotypes done at the U.S. Mint by Chief Coiner Franklin Peale.

 

RWJ

 

Thanks for the revised date Julian.

[WCO]

Famous Russian item made by electrotype process is a copy of a helmet of Yaroslav Vsevoldovich (Yaroslav lost the helmet on a battlefield in 1216). It was made and presented to Russian State Historical Museum on its opening (in 1872 if I am not mistaken).

 

WCO