5kop1796EM - Paul's re-overstrike

[sigistenz]

Overstrikes are a matter of taste. Should they be poorly done =very distinct

or should they be well executed =hardly visible?

I had to turn the final coin to make appear the host coin. Hit the link, click on the picture to enlarge.

Enjoy, Sigi

http://www.sigistenz.com/bilder/5kop1796EMPaul.jpg

[gxseries]

Sigi, congradulation on having an uncommon overstrike! I have two 1793's EM but none of 1796. What I noticed right away is at the right bottom of the monogram, I can see the year "179x" as well as the crown on the reverse.

[grivna1726]

Overstrikes are a matter of taste. Should they be poorly done =very distinct <br> or should they be well executed =hardly visible?<br> I had to turn the final coin to make appear the host coin. Hit the link, click on the picture to enlarge. <br> Enjoy, Sigi<br>

http://www.sigistenz.com/bilder/5kop1796EMPaul.jpg

 

 

What an attractive coin!

 

Other than the silhouette crown on the reverse, the "Д" and "К" in the wreath are the most visible traces of the undertype and a portion of the double lines above the date.

 

Even knowing where the date should be, I had to look closely before seeing it (with the "7" being the most easily seen).

[squirrel]

Beautiful coin! In addition, I can see part of the monogram, between the eagles Right head and right wing, as well as some of the dots around the perimeter. Thanks for showing!

[banivechi]

Good detective work!

[IgorS]

Very nice coin! In addition to all the other things mentioned, I like the color and the condition.

[Timofei]

Overstrikes are a matter of taste. Should they be poorly done =very distinct <br> or should they be well executed =hardly visible?

 

I prefer well executed. Not the best state of preservation but still with good sharp details.

[grivna1726]

I prefer well executed. Not the best state of preservation but still with good sharp details.

 

 

Interesting.

 

The 2 Paul re-overstrikes shown in this thread are both dated 1796 and seem (at least to my eye) much more sharply struck and with fewer traces of the undertype than similar re-overstrikes bearing earlier dates.

 

Two thoughts occur to me. 1796 was the last year for Catherine II and the first year for Paul. Is it possible that these re-overstrikes were made with dies prepared, but not used, for Catherine and the lack of wear on the 1796 dies compared to earlier (for example, 1793) dies used in the re-overstriking program is responsible for the better quality of the re-overstriking of the coins shown here?

 

The other thought is that maybe the mint used the freshly prepared 1796 dies first and only turned to the earlier dated (and worn-out) dies once the 1796 dies were no longer in usable condition.

 

Could it be that the large quantity to be re-overstruck resulted in pressure on the mint to sacrifice quality in favor of speed later in the re-overstriking program demanded by Paul? Certainly the re-overstrikes shown in this thread appear (at least, to me) to have made with much greater care than most I can recall seeing, but I am not a specialist in this series, so maybe I am mistaken?

[sigistenz]

The EM mint obviously still had preserved original 5kop1796EM dies. These could be taken for the re-overstrikes. Both coins shown in this thread have been executed at EM with original dies. The good job is a result of EM's capacity and experience of striking these large copper coins. By the way, AM (Annensk) was in the same position with old dies still on hand.

At the same time the St.Petersburg mint had to cut new dies carrying the EM mintmark and earlier dates (the new Tsar Paul would not assume the ugly looks of the re-overstruck coins, thus Catherine's dates were taken, but the design of both sides became somewhat different). St.Pete started re-overstriking but also sent dies to the Moscow Mint, which multiplied the dies, re-overstruck itself, but also sent dies to its Nizhny Novgorod branch mint.

The re-overstrikes with the old EM and AM dies can be attributed to the respective (well equipped and experienced) mints. The re-overstrikes from the new dies were executed at some of the above places, maybe unprepared and unexperienced, thus not always perfectly executed. Though mostly carrying the EM mint mark, they cannot be attributed to a particular mint. In mid 1797 the re-overstriking was complete with more than 20 million pcs re-overstruck. (Information basing mainly on "RUSSIAN COINS OF CATHERINE II" by M.E.Diakov)

[IgorS]

Here is a 1796 EM re-overstrike with cypher nicely visible.

[sigistenz]

Here is a 1796 EM re-overstrike with cypher nicely visible.

Igor, yours is a very outstanding coin because the host coin was a 10kop1796EM(Bitkin 780, R4). The host coin's date with the E of EM below can be seen vertically to the right of the final coin's date. Always checking the re-overstruck coins very carefully I can say that I have maybe seen at least 50, probably many more of them during 30 years. But this is only the 2nd time that I see EM on the host coin. Your coin is a rare variant of a rare coin, congratulations! Sigi

[grivna1726]

Igor, yours is a very outstanding coin because the host coin was a 10kop1796EM(Bitkin 780, R4). The host coin's date with the E of EM below can be seen vertically to the right of the final coin's date. Always checking the re-overstruck coins very carefully I can say that I have maybe seen at least 50, probably many more of them during 30 years. But this is only the 2nd time that I see EM on the host coin. Your coin is a rare variant of a rare coin, congratulations! Sigi

 

Sigi, thank you for the replies and the information provided. It seems there is still much to be learned about the coinage under Paul and many surprises to come.

 

This is a great thread!

[IgorS]

Igor, yours is a very outstanding coin because the host coin was a 10kop1796EM(Bitkin 780, R4). The host coin's date with the E of EM below can be seen vertically to the right of the final coin's date. Always checking the re-overstruck coins very carefully I can say that I have maybe seen at least 50, probably many more of them during 30 years. But this is only the 2nd time that I see EM on the host coin. Your coin is a rare variant of a rare coin, congratulations! Sigi

 

Thank you, Sigi. This coin came out of Renaissance sale in August 2000. I bought lot 416, which had 4 coins. Total including comission - $316. Good old (not so old) days. I will try to post a few pictures of the coins from this lot.

This one is 1793 2 kopeks with lettered edge re-overstruck on 1796 4 kopeks (Bitkin 104)

[IgorS]

This one was described in the auction as 10 kopeks 1796 on 5 kopeks coin of Catherine II. You be the judge.

[squirrel]

This is indeed an interesting thread! Very educational coins.

IgorS, my vote is for Paul's overstrike on your coin. The reverse seems to indicate so more than the obverse. Can you make out any fragment of the dates last two digits?

[IgorS]

This is indeed an interesting thread! Very educational coins.

IgorS, my vote is for Paul's overstrike on your coin. The reverse seems to indicate so more than the obverse. Can you make out any fragment of the dates last two digits?

 

Squirrel, I have it cataloged under 1793. I will re-check it on my next visit to the bank, it's been a while.

[squirrel]

No need for a trip to the big city... I believe the eagle to be the Pauls Re-Overstrike Eagle, which is slightly different than the 1763 type Catherine Eagle. This is a beatiful coin!

[sigistenz]

Squirrel, I have it cataloged under 1793. I will re-check it on my next visit to the bank, it's been a while.

This one is outstanding! Squirrel is right, no doubt that it's a Paulian re-overstrike. I think I can see a faint trace of the 3 of 93. A great coin and very large - I'd say pancake size. I have a similar one with a diameter of 48mm, but yours must be even larger. Sigi

[gxseries]

It most definately is interesting. The 1796 10 kopek EM itself is stunning - have never seen any examples except on catalogue books. Thanks for sharing.

 

sigi or anyone else can explain - how come old dies such as 1793 (which seesm to be the most common?) and other years were used too? Did the 1796 dies become useless eventually? That suprisingly said, although there might have been 20 million coins minted, even finding an overstruck 1796 10 kopek is getting quite difficult to find in decent grades. I have two but they are in terrible conditions Both of them got degraded after I dipped them in olive oil. I should have known that never do things by yourself - get an expert to do it.

[sigistenz]

- how come old dies such as 1793 (which seesm to be the most common?) and other years were used too? Did the 1796 dies become useless eventually? That suprisingly said, although there might have been 20 million coins minted, even finding an overstruck 1796 10 kopek is getting quite difficult to find in decent grades. I have two but they are in terrible conditions Both of them got degraded after I dipped them in olive oil. I should have known that never do things by yourself - get an expert to do it.

In 1796 the copper mints of the time (EM, AM and KM) started striking and issuing 1796 date 5kopek coins as usual. But they had to stop because of the planned introduction of the new standard.

In later 1796 the 5kop coins were overstruck into 10kop at St.Petersburg, Moscow, Ekaterinburg, Annensk and Kolyvan. The new coins were held back, they were to be issued on Jan. 1, 1797.

When Catherine II died in Nov. 1796 her successor Paul called off the overstriking and ordered the stock of 10kop to be re-overstruck into the earlier 5kop. As the re-overstruck coins looked ugly, they were to carry not his but Catherine's monogram and dates. EM and AM still possessed their 1796 5kop dies which they took for the re-overstriking. St.Petersburg and Moscow, not having minted regular 5kop coins for a while, did not have respective dies. As said earlier in this thread, dies had to be cut to enable St.Petersburg and Moscow to re-overstrike. Those dies were almost similar to Catherine's with dates of hers (1791-94) and mostly even the EM mint mark.

gxseries, dipping coins into olive oil normally does not harm them. Could you describe exactly, what you did and what the result was?

Thank you, Sigi

[gxseries]

Wow thanks for sharing the infomation Sigistenz - quality reading material Now it makes full sense to me. Now it explains why the huge variety of years.

 

By any chance, would you happen to have Catherine II copper coins overstrucked during the Paul I era other than the 5 kopeks? Quite tough to find.

 

---

 

Sigi, you wouldn't want to know how ugly the olive oil experiment turned out.

 

These are the two coins:

 

 

 

What I tried to do is to remove the minor verdrigis - it wasn't a smart move. Now that red lusture (of the second coin) is completely stripped off - you'll cry when you see what happened to it. Bright red has become pale yellow-orange I wouldn't want to show it either.

 

Perhaps the only thing that I screwed up completely is not using the highest quality olive oil and it might be the plastic containers that reacted with the oil. (should have used glass). It might be the liquid detergent too that I used to wash the containers but otherwise, I can't quite think of anything else. Yes, I did seperate them in different containers.

 

Moral of the story - leave it to the professionals

[sigistenz]

What I tried to do is to remove the minor verdrigis - it wasn't a smart move. Now that red lusture (of the second coin) is completely stripped off - you'll cry when you see what happened to it. Bright red has become pale yellow-orange I wouldn't want to show it either.

 

Perhaps the only thing that I screwed up completely is not using the highest quality olive oil and it might be the plastic containers that reacted with the oil. (should have used glass). It might be the liquid detergent too that I used to wash the containers but otherwise, I can't quite think of anything else. Yes, I did seperate them in different containers.

 

Moral of the story - leave it to the professionals

gxseries, I only have 5kop re-overstrikes, including a 5kop1791E:M:, two 1793EM and the 1796EM shown at the beginning of this thread. I collect only the large copper coins.

I still do not understand how your olive oil can have spoiled coins, I had a copper coin in olive oil for many months hoping that it would remove dark tarnish. The tarnish did not go away but the coin did not get harmed either. Sometimes I dip a dull copper coin in olive oil and rub it dry with a soft cloth, making it a bit shiny.

Why leave coin make up to professionals? Despite my many mistakes (each one made only once) I think every coin collector must also be a coin doctor. There are books on it. Try with inexpensive scrap coins.

If I understand correctly, the pictures show the coins before treatment.

If they look as described now, before discarding them, you may as well try the following:

1.Put them in acetone to make sure to remove any trace of fat or grease. Remove, let get dry.

2.Dissolve one or two small lumps of potassium sulfide in about half a cup of luke warm water.

3.Put one coin in it, watching it and turning it while in the solution. It will get brown. Take it out in time, don't let it get too dark. Rinse immediately with water. If the coins are as ugly as you say, you do not risk anything - but you will probably improve their looks. Good luck, Sigi

[IgorS]

By any chance, would you happen to have Catherine II copper coins overstrucked during the Paul I era other than the 5 kopeks? Quite tough to find.

 

On the previous page I showed an example of two kopeks coin 1793 EM. Mine has lettered edge and that makes it rare. The same type with xxxxxxxxx edge was always readily available. Probably not anymore.

Here is one where EM is not by the sides of the rider, but under. This one is very rare and I was only able to get it in relatively poor condition.