Opinions wanted

[bobh]

I'm sure that this one must be a fake, but I'm having trouble finding something concrete about it which would give it away as a fake:

50 kopeks 1898

 

Of course, the price is ridiculously low if it is genuine ... although the seller says that 1,000 were minted, the real number is more like 10 ... and only in proof. However, the usual diagnostics seem to fit. I think that it is probably an altered date from 1895 or 1896 since the rim for 1899 poltinas minted in St. Petersburg was much thinner, and with 1895 or 1896 the edge lettering could be used as is. The severe polishing probably was done to hide the evidence.

 

The pictures are lousy, but the denticles and crown appear to line up correctly ... rim thickness is correct ... date looks good ... obverse design looks OK to me. Does anybody else spot something which would give it away as a fake?

[RW Julian]

I'm sure that this one must be a fake, but I'm having trouble finding something concrete about it which would give it away as a fake:

50 kopeks 1898

 

Of course, the price is ridiculously low if it is genuine ... although the seller says that 1,000 were minted, the real number is more like 10 ... and only in proof. However, the usual diagnostics seem to fit. I think that it is probably an altered date from 1895 or 1896 since the rim for 1899 poltinas minted in St. Petersburg was much thinner, and with 1895 or 1896 the edge lettering could be used as is. The severe polishing probably was done to hide the evidence.

 

The pictures are lousy, but the denticles and crown appear to line up correctly ... rim thickness is correct ... date looks good ... obverse design looks OK to me. Does anybody else spot something which would give it away as a fake?

I have compared this to a good illustration of a known genuine piece (Ekaterina 23)

and the denticles do seem to line up correctly. However, the two figure 8s in the date

do not seem quite right. This may just be the poor photograph, however.

 

RWJ

[one-kuna]

I'm sure that this one must be a fake, but I'm having trouble finding something concrete about it which would give it away as a fake:

50 kopeks 1898

 

Of course, the price is ridiculously low if it is genuine ... although the seller says that 1,000 were minted, the real number is more like 10 ... and only in proof. However, the usual diagnostics seem to fit. I think that it is probably an altered date from 1895 or 1896 since the rim for 1899 poltinas minted in St. Petersburg was much thinner, and with 1895 or 1896 the edge lettering could be used as is. The severe polishing probably was done to hide the evidence.

 

The pictures are lousy, but the denticles and crown appear to line up correctly ... rim thickness is correct ... date looks good ... obverse design looks OK to me. Does anybody else spot something which would give it away as a fake?

Monety i Medali listed this one as with smooth edge, but using rarity scale from Uzdenikov (_), however Uzdenikov catalog itself brings lettered edge. Who is making a mistake. I would also add that two digits 8s in date and G. (first letter of year) are different from Ekaterina auction pic.

[bobh]

Monety i Medali listed this one as with smooth edge, but using rarity scale from Uzdenikov (_), however Uzdenikov catalog itself brings lettered edge. Who is making a mistake. I would also add that two digits 8s in date and G. (first letter of year) are different from Ekaterina auction pic.

Thanks, one-kuna.

 

Fascinating to know that Irving Goodman had three of these in his collection ... all proofs, of course (lots 1545-1547 from the Goodman sale, PR at $1760, $825 and $990 respectively ... those were the days! [whistling «Дорогой длинною»...]).

 

Forget about plain edge ... Birkin, Kazakov, etc. all say lettered edge with mintmaster (А.Г), as do the Goodman listings. Also, last year's NGSA auction speciman (auction 5, lot 1223) also had the lettered edge.

[bobh]

RW Julian sent me this image from the Ekaterina (Monety i Medali) sale 23, lot 331, as it will be interesting to compare with the other coin:

 

Looking again at the eBay coin, notice how the obverse denticles seem to "disappear" at 3 o'clock. The little incuse marks at 12 o'clock also look suspiciously like casting defects.

[alexbq2]

MIM's last auction #58, had this coin listed in VF and no mention of proof. Does that mean that business strikes do exist? It would be interesting to see a better picture of that coin.

[bobh]

MIM's last auction #58, had this coin listed in VF and no mention of proof. Does that mean that business strikes do exist? It would be interesting to see a better picture of that coin.

Do you have an online link to that one?

 

Kazakov states "proof only". Of course, it is possible that one or more of the proofs were put into circulation.

[alexbq2]

Do you have an online link to that one?

 

Kazakov states "proof only". Of course, it is possible that one or more of the proofs were put into circulation.

 

It is on their site, but the picture is tiny. Lot 419.

 

http://www.numismat.ru/au.shtml?au=58&...m=10&page=2

[sigistenz]

I'm sure that this one must be a fake, but I'm having trouble finding something concrete about it which would give it away as a fake:

50 kopeks 1898

 

Of course, the price is ridiculously low if it is genuine ... although the seller says that 1,000 were minted, the real number is more like 10 ... and only in proof. However, the usual diagnostics seem to fit. I think that it is probably an altered date from 1895 or 1896 since the rim for 1899 poltinas minted in St. Petersburg was much thinner, and with 1895 or 1896 the edge lettering could be used as is. The severe polishing probably was done to hide the evidence.

 

The pictures are lousy, but the denticles and crown appear to line up correctly ... rim thickness is correct ... date looks good ... obverse design looks OK to me. Does anybody else spot something which would give it away as a fake?

As a general rule it can be said that rare coins are in nice condition because they are detected early. Of course there are exceptions to the general rule. The seller is from Moldavia. Why doesn't he sell this rare coin in bordering Russia where the market and the experts are? Sigi

[one-kuna]

As a general rule it can be said that rare coins are in nice condition because they are detected early. Of course there are exceptions to the general rule. The seller is from Moldavia. Why doesn't he sell this rare coin in bordering Russia where the market and the experts are? Sigi

as I have noticed most of ebay sellers from Moldova have fakes for auctions

[Candidate]

Hello all

 

It is on their site, but the picture is tiny. Lot 419.

http://www.numismat.ru/au.shtml?au=58&...m=10&page=2

Here are larger pictures (I hope, MIM would not mind):

That one had an authenticity letter signed by I.Shiryakov of GIM.

Before it was sold (?) at MIM at approx. $11,000 (incl. BP) it was 3 times auctioned at "Wolmar" auction (both live and via internet).

 

The seller is from Moldavia. Why doesn't he sell this rare coin in bordering Russia where the market and the experts are? Sigi

I think, he tried. About half a year ago a seller from Moldova (nick "levronъ") was offering similar (or even this) coin on Russian e-auction Molotok at approx. $ 4,500.

[bobh]

Here are larger pictures (I hope, MIM would not mind):

That one had an authenticity letter signed by I.Shiryakov of GIM.

Before it was sold (?) at MIM at approx. $11,000 (incl. BP) it was 3 times auctioned at "Wolmar" auction (both live and via internet).

Thanks for the larger pictures, Candidate (and welcome to CoinPeople! )

I compared the obverse image with the one which RW Julian supplied, and there are two differences which I noticed immediately:

 

1. the rim border of the MiM 58 coin is much heavier than the MiM 23 coin;

2. the point of the bust is more pronounced and sharper in the MiM 23 coin than in the MiM 58 coin.

 

Although it is possible that the second item is due to lighting conditions in the photos, I think it highly unlikely that such differences would show up in a series where only 10 coins (or even 1,000) were struck. Surely only one obverse die was used for the entire series; as a result, it is usually quite easy to determine whether a coin with such low mintage numbers is genuine or not.

 

Now the big question remains: which one is it?

 

(Edit): Another question: Which is easier to fake, a coin or a letter of authenticity?

[bobh]

Does anyone have good pictures of the three 1898 50k. coins mentioned above sold in the Goodman sale? All I have is a Russian edition published shortly after the auction -- it contains the prices realized, but unfortunately the quality of print is anno 1992 or so (similar to the Rylov/Sobolin and Uzdenikov catalogues) ... and the pictures are no better than the ones in those catalogues.

 

Here is what I have. As you can see, the point of the bust is more like the MiM 23 coin than the MiM 58 coin; as to the rim border, it is very hard to tell from these pictures, but it looks thinner to me, too:

[alexbq2]

Surely only one obverse die was used for the entire series"

 

Wouldn't you need at least 2 sets of dies? One polished proof quality die, the second a regular business die?

[bobh]

Wouldn't you need at least 2 sets of dies? One polished proof quality die, the second a regular business die?

Not if it is a proof-only series.

[alexbq2]

Not if it is a proof-only series.

 

 

But the MIM 58 coin is not proof, and has been authenticated by Shiriakov, in my understanding, a well renowned and credible scientist from the State Historic Museum.

 

Also, if there were indeed 10000 proofs struck, I suspect that more than a single proof die was used.

[bobh]

But the MIM 58 coin is not proof, and has been authenticated by Shiriakov, in my understanding, a well renowned and credible scientist from the State Historic Museum.

 

Also, if there were indeed 10000 proofs struck, I suspect that more than a single proof die was used.

Did Mr. Shiryakov say it wasn't struck as a proof? The Kazakov reference state that 50 kopeks in 1898 were only struck as proofs, and I have also read that statement elsewhere, in more than one place, although I can't find the reference right now. So it could be a mishandled, circulated proof coin.

 

As to mintage figures of 10,000, all I can say is that RW Julian lists the mintage number as 10 in his reference work. None of my other references list any mintage numbers at all; I assume that Mr. Julian got this figure from one of the mint reports which are only summarized by Severin, for example.

 

The best thing would be if Mr. Julian could clarify these issues for us since he is a prominent forum contributor.

[RW Julian]

Did Mr. Shiryakov say it wasn't struck as a proof? The Kazakov reference state that 50 kopeks in 1898 were only struck as proofs, and I have also read that statement elsewhere, in more than one place, although I can't find the reference right now. So it could be a mishandled, circulated proof coin.

 

As to mintage figures of 10,000, all I can say is that RW Julian lists the mintage number as 10 in his reference work. None of my other references list any mintage numbers at all; I assume that Mr. Julian got this figure from one of the mint reports which are only summarized by Severin, for example.

 

The best thing would be if Mr. Julian could clarify these issues for us since he is a prominent forum contributor.

The mintage figure of 10 is correct but only in a certain sense. It was the practice of

the St. Petersburg Mint to provide sets of coins to certain museums and high-ranking

people, such as the Grand Duke. The figure of 10 in this case indicates the number of

pieces distributed in this manner.

 

On the other hand proofs were struck for collectors and these figures have never been

published, at least to my knowledge. It is difficult to estimate the number of such proofs

for the 1898 50 kopecks, but one would think that at least 200 might be a reasonable guess.

Proofs were sometimes struck under Nicholas II when the given date and denomination

was not minted for circulation.

 

RWJ

[one-kuna]

bobh,

 

take a look on this one from Alexander auction house auction 3, 2006:

 

http://www.adacoins.ru/coin_popup.php?aid=...&type=bimgr

 

http://www.adacoins.ru/coin_popup.php?aid=...&type=bimga

 

as always

[one-kuna]

bobh,

 

Goodman original looks much better than your well known anonimous copy (3 different publishing version exist)

 

My Goodman is cardbound and I do not want to damage it but some folks here have hardbound copies which is easy to open it without any damages to catalog and then scan it

[bobh]

bobh,

 

take a look on this one from Alexander auction house auction 3, 2006:

 

http://www.adacoins.ru/coin_popup.php?aid=...&type=bimgr

 

http://www.adacoins.ru/coin_popup.php?aid=...&type=bimga

 

as always

Thanks, one-kuna ... why not put links to the images like this?

[Candidate]

Did Mr. Shiryakov say it wasn't struck as a proof?

 

Here's what Mr.Shiryakov wrote:

 

 

(no mention of proof strike)

[Candidate]

Before it was sold (?) at MIM at approx. $11,000 (incl. BP) it was 3 times auctioned at "Wolmar" auction (both live and via internet)

 

I'm afraid I was wrong.

At "Wolmar" there was a different coin; here it is:

 

 

But that one was also with a letter from I.Shiryakov... unfortunately, I don't have a copy of it.

[bobh]

Here's what Mr.Shiryakov wrote:

(no mention of proof strike)

No mention of business strike, either. Isn't it obvious that because a coin is circulated and cleaned and surfaces damaged beyond all hope, that it is not possible to say whether the coin was struck as a regular strike or as a proof unless there are known differences in the dies used for both?

[alexbq2]

No mention of business strike, either. Isn't it obvious that because a coin is circulated and cleaned and surfaces damaged beyond all hope, that it is not possible to say whether the coin was struck as a regular strike or as a proof unless there are known differences in the dies used for both?

 

I'm not sure about this. The appraisal by Shiryakov does mention some visible luster on the coin. Does that suggest that the coin has not really been worn that much, and we should see some signs of it being a proof strike (if it were)?