In search for Denga 1730 and other years with 8 dots in reverse from its die template

[extant4cell]

I have this interesting, in my opinion, coin in my collection:

 

 

It displays 8 template dots reasonably sharply. Evdokimov G.S., in his article on Polushkas and Dengas 1730-1754, mentions that reverse dies of these coins have 8 dots that direct the structure of the image pattern on the coin. He also says that most coins will display at least 6 of the dots. The Daler, that these coins' reverses were designed by as prototypes, have only 4 points and they are its integral part of the image, where as on Russian coins these 8 dots play an important part in technological process and in protecting coins from forgeries.

 

 

All reverse dies of these coins can be separated into groups of template types. Even if the image looks somewhat different due to the use of different masters and tools, these dies are in the same group and would have these dots in the same position, as the same template has been used to guide the master which element goes where. The dots have also determined the angle of inclination of the image pattern in relation to the vertical axis drawn between the axial points (dots), upper and lower. This angle was given deliberately, in order to complicate the work of counterfeiters. Evdokimov established 8 template types. Only the first two types are relate to coins (in our case to Dengas) of 1730.

 

I was primarily interested in how often these coins are found bearing the relatively clear traces of 8 dots (points). In my collection I have not found any more coins with 8 points. I looked through various sources and in total I found 6 coin images (including mine), 5 of them are from 1730.

The first two template types defined by Evdokimov have to do with 1730 Dengas:

1) Early type 1730 - slightly elevated right side of the image (includes some 1735 and 1731. all 1731 with no lines or one line) - Red mint;
2) Late type 1730 - right side of the image is noticeably higher (includes some 1731) - Red mint.

In principle, it can be said that the search is reduces to determining whether there is dot in a rosette (above) and the bow/rosette (below). If axial point dots are present - that coin can be attributed as having 8 technological dots from its respective template.

 

Early 1730 type #1 in pink and Late 1730 type #2 (1731) in orange border:

 

(only the one pink border coin at the bottom - 1731 has both axil dot points,
the top one is givet only for a demonstration of the type).

 

Here is more to demonstrate type #1 or early 1730 type (without axil dot poins):

 

 

Student die (drops out of generic description):

 

As you can see, I managed to find coins with axial dots mostlly in 1730. It can be assumed that by 1731 the technology of die making and of masking the template points with the image (over-striking them) in a bow and a rosette was perfected. Please add more images of coins with axial dot points for 1730, and if you'll be able to find, for other years. I wonder how rarely they can be found.

[extant4cell]

Edited the first post making adjustments to types and adding one coin.

[sigistenz]

I am sorry to say that I do not have a single denga of the period to show. I only collect the large coppers.

This is the first time I read about templates, in fact, had to look up the word. I understand that the consideration comes from a Russian forum. This is an interesting thought. Or is it based on recently found information in archives? In my opinion it would be a strange idea to protect the 1730 denga against forgery. It was overstruck on the underweight kopek in order to represent its full metal value, i.e. this new denga contained now copper worth 1/2 kopek. This alone would discourage counterfeiters. No gain was to be made.

Are there templates to be found also on the large copper coins, the 5 kopeks?

Thank you for the interesting post.

Sigi

-

 

 

[extant4cell]

Hi Sigi! I was just researching my coin and came across an attempt on Russian site to build a guide for collectors of Dengas and Polushkas 1730-1754, based on Evdokimov's article that was printed in 2001 by GIM - State Historical Museum, here is the link to the guide (it's still pretty raw): http://coins.su/forum/index.php?showtopic=114568&st=25 ...

 

I had an argument about what type of template this coin belongs to. I was surprised by difference in opinions and decided to figure it out by myself. I had to read the article and this is my attempts in understanding what Evdokimov meant. As I pointed before he identified 8 templates for Dengas:

 

 

I can ask him, as we cross our passes sometimes on Russian forum, but he's been hassled enough by Dengas related questions, and it is more interesting to do this by myself, as I arrived to the discovery of what was already discovered 15 odd years ago before me (8 template dot points) kind of on my own, when I found my coin, and it is interesting to understand things on my own after reading his article. Particularly that it looks like people still don't understand the clear difference between type 1 and 2 and keep mixing them.

 

Here is a few examples from the guide they are working on:

 

===========================

Coin 1 is attributed in the guide to template #2 and coin 2 to type #1. Why? The positioning of key-dots is identical!!!
===========================


Both coins attributed as template #1, again, in my opinion they both belong to template #2.
===========================

Again, they both belong to template #2, but coin 13 is attributed to type #1, wrongly - if you ask me.

==========================

 

It is work in progress with this guide, and I hope they will correct these mistakes if I'll be able to persuade them, as I am pretty sure I am correct... It is a fascinating development on CFN in any case (building communal guide). I am glad that they are doing this project, and are so passionate about this, it is energizing! And that's how it suppose to be. Information is meant to be shared with good will.

 

I wish I knew anything like that about large coins. Evdokimov is researching them as well as you know, so I guess there is a need to follow his posts on CFN, but it boils down to the interest. I am waiting for a couple of kilos of 5 kopecks from Estonia at the moment, enough to fill in my 3 trays, but nothing too exciting looking at small pictures... however I may soon be interested in this subject a little more, who knows! If I'll come by some interesting info, I'll be sharing it with you. But I believe, your knowledge is far more superior, and always will be, than mine on that subject. It just crossed my mind that I was meant to read more on 1762 series a while ago when I was on holiday. Another interesting topic to research... Cheers!!!

[sigistenz]

Hi Eugene, following the link you povided above, I am amazed at the unbelievable number of variants of those dengas and polushkas. There must still exist countless barrels full in Russia. Where do all the coins come from? I think coin collecting was forbidden in the Soviet aera. One would have thought most old copper was melted down long, long ago.

But maybe mining is cheaper there than gathering scrap metal?

Sigi

(P.S.) I do not know about Evdokimov and his research

 

-

[extant4cell]

Metal detectors are very popular in Russia at the moment. People are prospecting for coins, although the new law forbids it now. It wont stop it quickly. I've seen interesting pictures of finding with hundreds and hundreds of coins... Russian land was the best bank for the safe keeping at the time, i guess. Coin collecting was not forbidden in USSR, but not many collected coins, not for investment in any case, but for historical value... I started in 1970s, not too serious, but it was always exciting for my to touch coins that my ancestors used. One of my friends started putting his money from summer jobs into collecting coins in 1985. By 1987 he had a collection that nowadays I can only dream to have if I win 20 million dollars! He had to buy 2 safes. Evdokimov was on a friendly note with Uzdenikov, but doesn't have a lot published, some articles, and I think he helped with some astute catalogs, but he has a wealth of knowledge in numismatic detective work for 18th c. copper in particular. His posts are always interesting to read as he researches a subject, but his ambitions don't run high, by the look of it, as he is not into publishing that much at all. These are the topics he participated in, if anyone may be intereseted: http://coins.su/forum/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=user_activity&mid=22235

[extant4cell]

Sorry for off-topic, but here is one examlpe that would make you feel sorry you don't live in Russia:

• 
• 

from: http://coins.su/forum/index.php?showtopic=112322&st=0

[sigistenz]

Thank you very much, Eugene. I think I prefer where I am.

The links you sent are very interesting. I am going on with Russian in evening classes, understanding more and more.

Sigi

 

-

 

 

[extant4cell]

I am glad I made you smile! It is amazing what they find there sometimes... The only problem is that sometimes it may be a mine...

[alexbq2]

I hear that there's some new law that's meant to crack down on all this metal detecting. Perhaps they did pull up too many mines and other weapons. Would the Russian government really care about old coins?

[grivna1726]

Fascinating post!

 

It does seem a lot of trouble for a coin of full value. But what if there was a concern that the value of copper might decline in the future, making the counterfeiting of this type profitable? Perhaps the authorities might want some way to distinguish the counterfeit coins from the real ones if that happened. Russia was flooded with counterfeit copper in the 1720s, which is why the overstriking in the 1730s took place. When considered in that context, the use of such templates does not seem so strange.

 

 

Hi Sigi! I was just researching my coin and came across an attempt on Russian site to build a guide for collectors of Dengas and Polushkas 1730-1754, based on Evdokimov's article that was printed in 2001 by GIM - State Historical Museum, here is the link to the guide (it's still pretty raw): http://coins.su/forum/index.php?showtopic=114568&st=25 ...

 

I had an argument about what type of template this coin belongs to. I was surprised by difference in opinions and decided to figure it out by myself. I had to read the article and this is my attempts in understanding what Evdokimov meant. As I pointed before he identified 8 templates for Dengas:

 

 

I can ask him, as we cross our passes sometimes on Russian forum, but he's been hassled enough by Dengas related questions, and it is more interesting to do this by myself, as I arrived to the discovery of what was already discovered 15 odd years ago before me (8 template dot points) kind of on my own, when I found my coin, and it is interesting to understand things on my own after reading his article. Particularly that it looks like people still don't understand the clear difference between type 1 and 2 and keep mixing them.

 

Here is a few examples from the guide they are working on:

 

===========================

Coin 1 is attributed in the guide to template #2 and coin 2 to type #1. Why? The positioning of key-dots is identical!!!
===========================


Both coins attributed as template #1, again, in my opinion they both belong to template #2.
===========================

Again, they both belong to template #2, but coin 13 is attributed to type #1, wrongly - if you ask me.

==========================

 

It is work in progress with this guide, and I hope they will correct these mistakes if I'll be able to persuade them, as I am pretty sure I am correct... It is a fascinating development on CFN in any case (building communal guide). I am glad that they are doing this project, and are so passionate about this, it is energizing! And that's how it suppose to be. Information is meant to be shared with good will.

 

I wish I knew anything like that about large coins. Evdokimov is researching them as well as you know, so I guess there is a need to follow his posts on CFN, but it boils down to the interest. I am waiting for a couple of kilos of 5 kopecks from Estonia at the moment, enough to fill in my 3 trays, but nothing too exciting looking at small pictures... however I may soon be interested in this subject a little more, who knows! If I'll come by some interesting info, I'll be sharing it with you. But I believe, your knowledge is far more superior, and always will be, than mine on that subject. It just crossed my mind that I was meant to read more on 1762 series a while ago when I was on holiday. Another interesting topic to research... Cheers!!!

[alexbq2]

Maybe, but seems like in 1730-31 there is a lot of variation with respect to design elements. Maybe the dots are just there to keep everyone on the same page.

 

They should have put some dots on the obverse too. Could have avoided an eagle that looks like this

 

[extant4cell]

This is template #3, with 2 curls in opposite directions next to the rosette on both sides. So it could be 1731 or 1734. They still used the templates even as they recognised by the end of 1731 that no one is making any counterfeits of these coins. It just became a part of technological process. No one seriously researched the eagle templates, but they were used as well, as someone mentioned in passing to me. The quality of eagles has declined since the dies made by silver coins metal masters have worn out and the new eagles were made by freshman in the trade. That was also due to no interest from counterfeiters to make some minimal profit, as the authorities have relaxed.

 

 

By the way, I made a simple enough graphical representation / instruction on how to tell template #1 from template #2. Apparently, there is one visual element that always (on good quality prints) is different on both types, making it easy to distinguish them. That is the distance between the 2nd and 3rd element on a right from the rosette. Also, I can say now that coins made with template #2 are probably the earlier once, as there are many coins made with this template in 1730, and a lot more with template #1 in 1731. But that's just an observation. Here is the picture for you, if you are interested:

 

The other thing I am interested in at the moment is the branches under the oval on the reverse side. The difference between Palm and Acanthus branches... There is a bit of mix up in what constitutes what, so here are some more pictures for you as well.

Again, my question was - what branches are there on this coin? to which I wasn't given a stronly coherent answer:

So I had to research - Palm branches:

Only the branches from a coconat palm tree were used in Dengas...

Now Acanthus branches:

This is the classical acanthus view...

[extant4cell]

Now, again - the coin in question, that would normally be attributed to palm tree branchs, just because if doesn't look like a classical acanthus:

 

 

Palm branches? Really? I don't think so... They curve inside like acanthus, they are narrower at the stern and fatter looking as you get closer to the end point. It is not a palm branch! It looks like acanthus that is looked at from a lower angle, that would cover the other side of the leaf, showing not 3 or 5 ends of the leaf, but only 2. I'd call it a Simple Acanthus.

 

There are also combinations of both branches:

 

There are also combinations of the leaves on the same branch:

 

 

Same here:

 

And like this - Classical on one side and more Simple Acanthus on the other side:

 

All and all it shows the verieties, and at the same time, that the acnthus was used on a top of palm branches in order to create the acanthus look.

Did they create the mixed branches on purpose or by mistake, is unknown for now. If the stats will be collected over time, it will become more apparent. At the moment it looks like there are 5 types of descriptions that can be used solo or in combination, as they may mix with each other to create new ones:

 

• Classical Acanthus - as on Polushkas, with three or more ends;
• Simple Acanthus - two ends, cuved inside, fatter looking;
• Combination of branches - one is from Acanthus, the other one from Palm;
• Combination of leaves - both Acanthus and Palm leaves are represented on the branch;
• Palm - leaves are narrow and long.

That's what I spend my spare time on last night... should have just watched Hobbit, or new Russian Sherlock Holmes series...

[alexbq2]

The "Drunken" Eagle is only know to have been struck in 1731. As far as the branches go, I'm just curious, if someone told an engraver at Moscow mint to cut the Palm branches, what would they do? I mean it's not like they could go to the park and look at a palm tree?

 

I assume that people have heard of palms, but would they have had a clear idea of what a palm branch looks like?

 

P.S. There's a New Russian Sherlock Holmes series?! Is it any good? How does it compare to the old one?

[extant4cell]

Drunken eagles are the result of teaching new masters of the trade... They had planty of books in botanic science and lots of dallers to know what the palms look like:

 

 

The new Holmes is pretty good. The time was not wasted, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Here is a preview for you (with English subs, but only preview has subs, the episodes have not been subbed yet): - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFY9rw4Iji8

Watched it second time round already, and found out that Moriarty was in it from the very first episode. I didn't see him the first time-round until far into the season... You can download all episodes via torrent (utorrent client), just search for Шерлок Холмс 2013 торрент. It has old Russian Musketeer, Boyarsky in it, as a chief of Scotland Yard, which feels a little like Tsarist Secret Service Police sometimes...

 

The New British Sherlock is out now too - season 3. I haven't watched it yet, but the first 2 seasons where good, so I was told that this one is pretty good too...

[extant4cell]

One of our friends made this available for collectors use. It may be helpful when comparing two coin images if you are looking for any differences. You just choose three points on first image and three on the other, and program does the rest. It's worth trying this little program for reserching coins with many small differences, like dengas or 5 kopecks... Here is the link: http://aknew.github.io/imageCompare/ImageComporation.html

[extant4cell]

Here is another one with 8 dots (one on the left ones is worn out, but the main thing is the bow and rosette dots are present):

[gxseries]

What variety is this by any chance extant4cell? I know it's not the best photo but it's a photo that I took probably 7 years ago. Think this is the only 1730 denga that I have.

 

[extant4cell]

Hi! It's template 2 - 1730 - the most common template for this year.

The eagle is like #26 in their guide.

 

 

Common coin for 1730, as they put in the guide. I wouldn't completely trust the rarity grading of that guide, but would use it as a guide (it's still in making).

 

All 1730 dengas are reasonably scares and with 1731 are the most interesting to study due to multiple overlaps like overdates etc., huge number of varieties and some of the most beautiful eagles seen in these coins.

 

I only have 4 1730 dengas in my collection. The very first one I shown, one in post 18, another one (I don't have a picture handy, it's worn out but with old patina and it's nice looking) and this one that I just ordered:

 

It's a fat sad looking eagle. There is a whole family of them here with one beautifyl example given a little later in the thread (where they discuss other coins as well): http://coins.su/forum/index.php?showtopic=80279&st=0

 

This is the one:

 

• 
• 

It's from earlier strikes. You can see the characteristic die crack crossing the sceptre that progressed over the course of the year. They all have it and it is a reasonably rare find... The reverse sides can be different, but eagles are all from one hardy die.

[extant4cell]

Here is one interesting polushka and denga from A. Basok, shown on CFN:

 

 

(А.Басок выдвигал теорию монет для Галиции http://www.rustypenn...log/Galizia.htm)

 

Petty they don't show 8 dots, but it's interesting nonetheless. Coins used in Galitziya, according to the theory..,

[extant4cell]

However, the theory that wasn't challenge since 1995 may now be compromised by the find of this polushka (left) and another denga (right):

 

"1" on polushka is from russian die tool set, typical Russian coin number, on the right picture it is a denga that was stamped with "1", which really should be "2"...

[extant4cell]

 

it is denga, after all... that resembles this:

 

 

Only if this denga is small format and light in weight it would make sense to convert it into 1 Kreuzer, which according to Basok was the fate of polushkas, while dengas were converted into 2 Kreuzers.

 

I wonder if there was too much pollution in Austria those days. What's with the space-walk hamlets?!?!

[extant4cell]

Returning to dengas. Just to make it a little more clear re: to templates of revers side for 1730-1731, here are some examples:

 

Template 1 (much less common in 1730, more common in 1731):

 

Template 2 (common in 1730, much less common in 1731):

Template 3 (most common in 1731):

Template 4 (not too common):

And there are some rare coins made without the use of known templates:

 

 

I haven't been looking long enough to say I can not find one, but all my dengas 1730 belong to template 2, and I am still looking for one that belongs to template 1, so if you have one and can spare it, keep me in mind as I am interested. I have all other templates present, apart from the rare template-none compliant coins. In 1731 it is the oposite. I have 2 dengas from template 2 and about 5-6 that belong to template 1 (more common in 1731) but the most common template in 1731 is #3.

[BKB]

I did not read the article of Evdokimov. Is it posted on-line somewhere? I only have 1 question -- is there any documentary proof that the crookedness of the design is related to anti-counterfeiting strategy, or, that is his theory?