5 rouble 1909

[altyn]

These are two coins from my collection. Several differences in the portrait are noticeable: the earlobes, the tip of the nose, and especially the shape of the nose bridge. These differences cannot be attributed to different light angles etc - I took both pictures pretty much the same way.

Most coins shown on the m-dv site are of the upper type. The lower portrait is the same as seen on the 1903-1904 coins. Kazakov does not mention two types for this year. The Conros catalogue lists the upper type as their portrait B (249923) which it certainly is not (portrait B is an early type, named by Kazakov as 'die of 1898', and seen until 1902). The lower type is the Conros type C (191355, but their photo accessible from that link is not very good and one can't be sure).

Most of the 1910 five-rouble coins shown in m-dv seem to be of the upper 1909 type, but in 1911 the portrait gets slightly changed again. I wonder if anybody has seen this the same way I do.

[bobh]

These are two coins from my collection. Several differences in the portrait are noticeable: the earlobes, the tip of the nose, and especially the shape of the nose bridge. These differences cannot be attributed to different light angles etc - I took both pictures pretty much the same way.

Most coins shown on the m-dv site are of the upper type. The lower portrait is the same as seen on the 1903-1904 coins. Kazakov does not mention two types for this year. The Conros catalogue lists the upper type as their portrait B (249923) which it certainly is not (portrait B is an early type, named by Kazakov as 'die of 1898', and seen until 1902). The lower type is the Conros type C (191355, but their photo accessible from that link is not very good and one can't be sure).

Most of the 1910 five-rouble coins shown in m-dv seem to be of the upper 1909 type, but in 1911 the portrait gets slightly changed again. I wonder if anybody has seen this the same way I do.

Good catch, altyn!

I definitely see what you are seeing; the nose tip differences are especially obvious.

 

Also, I see a difference in the "Adam's apple" (кадык), similar to that on the 1897 gold coins (15 and 7-1/2 rouble). I wrote about the varieties of 15 rouble coins in one of the recent JRNS issues, and I've been planning on writing about the similar varieties of 7-1/2 rouble coins which appear to correspond to the wide + narrow rim varieties.

 

These 5 rouble varieties are news to me, though. Congratulations on another variety discovery!

[sigistenz]

Amazing pictures

how did you do them?

Sigi

 

-

[altyn]

Here I put together the most obvious differences. Many thanks to bobh for pointing at the neck line (Adam's apple) difference!.

[altyn]

Amazing pictures

how did you do them?

Sigi

 

Thank you Sigi. Those images were taken using a Kaiser 300W halogen light source. The objective was a Nikkor 105 mm macro lense. I would be happy to discuss the set up by PM

[sigistenz]

Thank you Sigi. Those images were taken using a Kaiser 300W halogen light source. The objective was a Nikkor 105 mm macro lense. I would be happy to discuss the set up by PM

Thank you, altyn!

[bobh]

Here I put together the most obvious differences. Many thanks to bobh for pointing at the neck line (Adam's apple) difference!.

 

There is some speculation as to whether the Soviet government used 1909 dies to strike 5 rouble gold coins. Bitkin, for example, assumes that both the 5 and 10 rouble restrikes were both from dies of 1911, but 5 rouble 1911 coins are so rare (much more so than 1909, at any rate) that I would guess only the 10 rouble 1911 coins are mostly restrikes. These are also very common, whereas 1909 and 1910 ten rouble coins are scarce. Severin, in his book about gold and platinum, remarks that 5 rouble 1909 gold coins were "currently flooding the market" back in the late 1950's or early 1960's when fake Russian coins were not nearly as much of a problem as today.

 

Could it be that they used different obverse dies at times? The original 1909 coins (5 roubles) were presumably struck in similarly small quantities as in 1910 and 1911, and probably not too many different dies were used, all from the same hub. But if the Soviets struck gold coins in quantity, they wouldn't necessarily have wanted to prepare (or have been able to prepare) any new dies from pre-revolutionary hubs, but merely took what was still usable in a fairly indiscriminate manner.

 

Just IMHO, of course.

[altyn]

I saw several 1909 coins with a relatively poor strike of the reverse. Among those is the upper coin shown in my first post. One can look for example at the central shield behind St. George. The vertical lines which form the shield's background came out only in the upper right corner of the shield. And this is a rather typical defect that I remember seeing a few times. So, it is really tempting to hypothesize that at least some of those coins represent bolsheviks' restrikes for which some old, corroded or crudely cleaned dies were used.

The subject of 5 and 10 rouble restrikes by the Soviets in 1925-26 was among those addressed in a study published on Staraya Moneta. The author claims to have found some (minor) features resulting from a sloppy technology used by the Soviets that allow for identification of those restrikes. He lists 5 rouble restrikes for years 1897, 1898, 1899, 1902 and 1904, but not for 1909. Whether or not these conclusions can be regarded as absolutely accurate is questionable. The same author, although having meticulously listed six types of the obverse dies, did not discriminate between the two types observed for 1909 for which year he only listed the same die as for years 1903-4. Yet, according to this author, three different types of obverse dies were used by bolsheviks, and one can suspect that the actual number may be even higher. This is certainly in line with the notion by bobh that bolsheviks would use whatever happened to be around and in working condition.