alexbq2 Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 I'm not a medal collector. But once in a while I pick something up for fun. Here's my new acquisition, a medal struck to commemorate the birth of Pavel Petrovich: http://www.omnicoin.com/coin_view_enlarge.aspx?id=962143 I found some references to a similar medal: http://www.numismat-invest.ru/view_img.php...img2=173712.gif "This medal is a later restrike (late 18th - 19th century) of the medal struck during the reign of Catherine the Great to commemorate the birth of Pavel Petrovich (future Paul I). Original die-stamps were executed by Georg Christian Waechter and Samoila Yudin. The die-stamps for this medal were copied by Samoila Yudin and Timofei Ivanov. Beneath bust truncation: TIMOFEI IVANOV. Diakov#105.3(R1), Smirnov.238" My medal is signed by Waechter not Ivanov, so mine must be the original. I'm curious as to what the Medal references have to say about this medal. Thanks in advance! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 I'm not a medal collector. But once in a while I pick something up for fun. Here's my new acquisition, a medal struck to commemorate the birth of Pavel Petrovich: http://www.omnicoin.com/coin_view_enlarge.aspx?id=962143 I found some references to a similar medal: http://www.numismat-invest.ru/view_img.php...img2=173712.gif "This medal is a later restrike (late 18th - 19th century) of the medal struck during the reign of Catherine the Great to commemorate the birth of Pavel Petrovich (future Paul I). Original die-stamps were executed by Georg Christian Waechter and Samoila Yudin. The die-stamps for this medal were copied by Samoila Yudin and Timofei Ivanov. Beneath bust truncation: TIMOFEI IVANOV. Diakov#105.3(R1), Smirnov.238" My medal is signed by Waechter not Ivanov, so mine must be the original. I'm curious as to what the Medal references have to say about this medal. Thanks in advance! Diakov reference says that Original dies were executed by Weaxter/ Yudin. Copied dies are by Ivanov/ Yudin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted April 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 Diakov reference says that Original dies were executed by Weaxter/ Yudin.Copied dies are by Ivanov/ Yudin. Does Diakov distinguish the 2 variants (the original and the copy) or do they both go under Diakov #105? I’m curious, because I’ve seen several instances of the Ivanov copy, on auction sites, and it appears that Diakov ranks it as R1, did not find listings for the original yet. So does the same R1 apply to the original medal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 Does Diakov distinguish the 2 variants (the original and the copy) or do they both go under Diakov #105? I’m curious, because I’ve seen several instances of the Ivanov copy, on auction sites, and it appears that Diakov ranks it as R1, did not find listings for the original yet. So does the same R1 apply to the original medal? First of all it is under Diakov #97 in volume 2 covering period 1725-1796. Original dies is listed under #97.1 and copied dies under #97.2 accordingly. As I saw your image, it is a medal from a white metal. And both are them (white metal) are NOT listed by Diakov. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted April 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 First of all it is under Diakov #97 in volume 2 covering period 1725-1796.Original dies is listed under #97.1 and copied dies under #97.2 accordingly. As I saw your image, it is a medal from a white metal. And both are them (white metal) are NOT listed by Diakov. Very interesting! Thank you. I wonder what the new Bitkin medal catalog lists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IgorS Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 First of all it is under Diakov #97 in volume 2 covering period 1725-1796.Original dies is listed under #97.1 and copied dies under #97.2 accordingly. As I saw your image, it is a medal from a white metal. And both are them (white metal) are NOT listed by Diakov. Some clarification - Diakov does not list medals by metal. If he thinks that some medal in some metal is more than just common, he simply expresses his opinion on the rarity of that medal in that metal. The assumption is that medal might exist in all metals used for striking medals. Very interesting! Thank you. I wonder what the new Bitkin medal catalog lists. I have not seen the new book yet, by I thought that Bitkin's new book is only on award medals for wear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Some clarification - Diakov does not list medals by metal. If he thinks that some medal in some metal is more than just common, he simply expresses his opinion on the rarity of that medal in that metal. The assumption is that medal might exist in all metals used for striking medals. I have not seen the new book yet, by I thought that Bitkin's new book is only on award medals for wear. *then what all AR AE AG means in his catalogs after each medal? *Bitkin new book for wear award only, as review on this book says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IgorS Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 *then what all AR AE AG means in his catalogs after each medal? AR, AE, AG in his catalogs are not after each medal. Let's take 97.2 for example. It mentiones AR R2 (in silver rarity R2). No other metals are mentioned. That does not mean that this medal does not exist in copper, it just means that in author's oppinion this medal is common in copper and does not deserve rarity rating. Actually, if you look lower, you will see that copper medal sold in WWCC auction 21. As a side point, starting with book part 4 author added rarity rating R0 (parts 1-3 had lowest rarity rating R1) to identify medals that are one notch up from common. So R1 is equivalent of RR and R0 is equivalent of R. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted April 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 AR, AE, AG in his catalogs are not after each medal. Let's take 97.2 for example. It mentiones AR R2 (in silver rarity R2). No other metals are mentioned. That does not mean that this medal does not exist in copper, it just means that in author's oppinion this medal is common in copper and does not deserve rarity rating. Actually, if you look lower, you will see that copper medal sold in WWCC auction 21. As a side point, starting with book part 4 author added rarity rating R0 (parts 1-3 had lowest rarity rating R1) to identify medals that are one notch up from common. So R1 is equivalent of RR and R0 is equivalent of R. I've never seen Diakov's catalogs, so could you please elaborate on what he has to say about 97.1, which is what my specimen appears to be. I'm not sure what metal it is made of. It is white and silvery, but not sure if it is silver - perhaps an alloy? Weight is 86.5 grams. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IgorS Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 I've never seen Diakov's catalogs, so could you please elaborate on what he has to say about 97.1, which is what my specimen appears to be. I'm not sure what metal it is made of. It is white and silvery, but not sure if it is silver - perhaps an alloy? Weight is 86.5 grams. Thanks. In the evening I will scan a page from the catalog and post it here. Your medal is made from so called "white metal". White metal medals were the most affordable for collectors back in the day (now as well). Most of the medal collectors in Russian today are not interested in white metal medals. But, I do not see any reason for it, other than the fact that they are susceptible to corrosion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IgorS Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Here it is: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted April 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 Thank you for the scan! So looks like the original is a bit scarcer than the Ivanov copy, at least for other metals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IgorS Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 Thank you for the scan! So looks like the original is a bit scarcer than the Ivanov copy, at least for other metals. No problem. But let's say the copy was more scarce than the original. Would that make it more desirable to own a copy instead? Not for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted April 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 No problem. But let's say the copy was more scarce than the original. Would that make it more desirable to own a copy instead? Not for me. The copy would have been made 10-15 years after the original. I don’t have anything against Novodels. I would have been content with either variant. I’m not sure why the mint reissued this medal, perhaps not too many were struck originally? Which is somewhat confirmed by the reference you provided. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IgorS Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 The copy would have been made 10-15 years after the original. I don’t have anything against Novodels. I would have been content with either variant. I’m not sure why the mint reissued this medal, perhaps not too many were struck originally? Which is somewhat confirmed by the reference you provided. Thanks! I would be content as well. I was merely making a point of comparing rarity to rarity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 Some clarification - Diakov does not list medals by metal. If he thinks that some medal in some metal is more than just common, he simply expresses his opinion on the rarity of that medal in that metal. The assumption is that medal might exist in all metals used for striking medals. thank you for very interesting clarification Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted June 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 The copy would have been made 10-15 years after the original. I don’t have anything against Novodels. I would have been content with either variant. I’m not sure why the mint reissued this medal, perhaps not too many were struck originally? Which is somewhat confirmed by the reference you provided. Thanks! I now understand that the medals initially issued at the birth of an heir were reissued at the time of coronation of that person. So the copy would have been made in 1796. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted June 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 A new medal, and the same question. What does Diakov have to say about this one? http://www.omnicoin.com/coin_view_enlarge.aspx?id=966374 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IgorS Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 A new medal, and the same question. What does Diakov have to say about this one? http://www.omnicoin.com/coin_view_enlarge.aspx?id=966374 Diakov 109.1 or 109.2. Prize medal to students by Yudin. There should be russian letter "yu" (for Yudin) above the exergue line. If "yu" is on the left side - it is 109.1 (R1 in copper), if "yu" is on the right side - it is 109.2 (common in copper). You should get the companion medal from the next century - http://cgi.ebay.com/RUSSIA-CA-1855-MOSCOW-...alenotsupported Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted June 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Diakov 109.1 or 109.2. Prize medal to students by Yudin.There should be russian letter "yu" (for Yudin) above the exergue line. If "yu" is on the left side - it is 109.1 (R1 in copper), if "yu" is on the right side - it is 109.2 (common in copper). You should get the companion medal from the next century - http://cgi.ebay.com/RUSSIA-CA-1855-MOSCOW-...alenotsupported Thank You! The only online reference to this medal that I've found was from 1898 Spink & Sons Numismatic Circular #70. They attributed it to the Foundation of the Moscow University in 1754. The 'yu' is on the right side - 109.2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IgorS Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Thank You! The only online reference to this medal that I've found was from 1898 Spink & Sons Numismatic Circular #70. They attributed it to the Foundation of the Moscow University in 1754. The 'yu' is on the right side - 109.2 The Foundation of the Moscow University medal is by Dassier with a beautifull portrait of Elizabeth (slightly similar to the rouble). BTW, it is unlikely that actual student award medals were in copper, so your medal is probably a novodel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted June 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 The Foundation of the Moscow University medal is by Dassier with a beautifull portrait of Elizabeth (slightly similar to the rouble).BTW, it is unlikely that actual student award medals were in copper, so your medal is probably a novodel. Yes, I’ve seen that medal during my search. Both sides are quite lovely. Thank you for all the information, I’ve updated the OmniCoin description. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grivna1726 Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 Yes, I’ve seen that medal during my search. Both sides are quite lovely. I agree. I find it astounding that Dassier's work on the rouble did not meet with the Empress's approval. To my mind it is, in all its variations, by far the most attractive of all of her coin or medal portraits. Here is the Dassier medal for the founding of the University which IgorS mentioned: LINK Even the Timofei Ivanov coin portrait of 1757-1761 (which replaced Dassier's work), shows Dassier's influence (although the Ivanov version is officially derived from Benjamin Scott's work as ordered by the Empress). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altyn Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 I find it astounding that Dassier's work on the rouble did not meet with the Empress's approval. If only he paid more attention to properly showing the Empress's dress... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grivna1726 Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 If only he paid more attention to properly showing the Empress's dress... I am not sure what you mean. Is the dress somehow inaccurately rendered? The dress doesn't look radically different from the earlier Scott version to me (and no doubt she had more than just one dress!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.