Jump to content
CoinPeople.com

RW Julian

Members
  • Posts

    990
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RW Julian

  1. The Carson City Mint did not open until January 1870. These dollars with the wrong mintmark/date combinations are mostly made in China.
  2. I have been tied up on other matters for a few days (including a trip to the Central States show in Chicago) and not able to respond. My maternal grandfather was Charles E. Girard (1864-1945), the source for the name. One must eventually sell off a collection and I began to do so several years ago but used the Girard name as I was still editor of the Russian Journal. It had originally been intended to use the Girard name for this sale but I decided to use my own for this and the coming November sale. The November sale will basically be the type coins as well as a fair number of the scarcer pieces. The collection had reached about 4500 pieces, including both Soviet and Imperial, in 2006; the first sale was in November 2006. I began collecting Russian material in 1952, when there was little interest, but times have changed. Many of the pieces, such as the Georgian 1807 half abazi (one other known, in the Hermitage) or the 1775 Moscow rouble, have long fascinated me but it is time for others to enjoy these coins as I have done for so many years.
  3. I was unaware of the 1806 AT listing until you mentioned it on this forum. The R4 listing by Bitkin is a guess on his part; he also lists novodels (per Uzdenikov) for the Georgian series but I doubt that any exist. He says, for example, that the 1807 AT double abazi is a novodel but it is not; it is definitely a fake.
  4. It is likely a counterfeit, though above average. There is an 1807 AT Two Abazi that is false but was accepted as genuine by Giel-Ilyin in their 1904 reference; it is illustrated in the RNS Journal summer 2008, page 67.
  5. The “fact” that a gold specimen is not mentioned in the literature means nothing. It is often the case that an unknown coin or medal will surface decades after being struck. In 1884 and 1885 United States Trade dollars were secretly struck at the Philadelphia Mint and did not become known to numismatists for nearly 30 years. There is no question whatsoever that lead strikes were made when the Grand Duke’s dies were first made. Such strikes are not mentioned in the literature yet certainly existed, a point which one-kuna does not wish to discuss. One-kuna then quotes a Russian “expert” as saying the piece was made in Zelenograd. One-kuna now must name his experts and their qualifications. Anonymous claims are not acceptable. One-kuna is of course right that a specimen cannot be determined to be genuine from a photograph. But he has produced no evidence of any kind that it is not not genuine. RWJ
  6. One-kuna posted his original message to the fakes forum without any evidence that the piece in question is bad. The presumption of genuineness from a reputable seller is assumed unless proven otherwise. I see nothing in the photograph of this piece that causes me to question it. RWJ
  7. You have it backwards. I do not have to prove it is genuine, you have to prove otherwise and you have not done so. Stating that Alexander III did or did not receive a gold medal is proof of nothing. The edge inscription is a good indication of being genuine. There is no doubt in my mind that the Grand Duke would have ordered a gold specimen for his own collection. The only way to state with certainty that no medal was struck in gold is to produce the original Mint records. In another posting you state that no lead or tin pieces have shown up. Lead pieces are always struck by mints to show the owner of the dies the current state of the die work. This is done so that necessary changes can be made to unhardened dies. The Grand Duke would have kept copies of the lead proofs, for example, yet they have not shown up. They may no longer exist but certainly did at one time. RWJ
  8. When an item is offered for sale and there was a recent article on the subject, then there is a direct connection. RWJ
  9. I fail to see the importance of a different finish being ordered by the Grand Duke. Experimental finishes are done all the time by medallists and mints and have been for a long time. The fact that the piece was not published until now is irrelevant. RWJ
  10. I think that you do not understand the meaning of the Staraya Moneta work. Kopylov, as I understand the matter, was offering an older medal for sale in connection with the article. There was no reason to mention a gold medal or trial strikes. The Giel medals, on the other hand, were a public offering, an entirely different matter. The medal dies would have been kept at the Mint subject to orders from the Grand Duke. RWJ
  11. The fact that different finishes exist for a coin or medal depends upon what was ordered at the time the piece was made. The Paris Mint, for example, made proof coins in a variety of finishes. The vignettes and fields are often treated in a different manner. Today we expect matte finishes for the vignettes and brilliant for the fields but this is not always the case as the process is sometimes reversed, as on recent U.S. bullion pieces. RWJ
  12. The striking of medals from the Grand Duke’s dies was a private matter and I see no problem with the existence of one or more gold medals. It is also likely that trial strikes existed (or still do) in lead and tin. The Grand Duke was, after all, a collector and would have had specimens in various metals struck for his personal holdings. The Grand Duke’s home in St. Petersburg was looted by mobs when the Bolsheviks seized power and many of his possessions, such as books and papers, were simply thrown into the street. It takes little imagination to think that his stock of medals was stolen at that time. RWJ
  13. Theoretically, it ought to be possible to distinguish between the two mints for 1758. Your suggestion of the edging tools is a good one. Another idea would be to compare the eagles, wreaths, and crowns on issues known to be from Ekaterinburg with the illustrated 1758 piece. One could start with 1762 and work backwards, for example. I do not know of any published work in this area. RWJ
  14. I think what you have is the standard proof-like set from 1974. The brass pieces sometimes look like gold and the copper-nickel coins are often mistaken for silver. The Goznak token is standard for such sets. The set is worth only a few dollars. RWJ
  15. Agreed. The only correction I notice at first hand is that the Warsaw mintmark (MW) has by accident been put into Cyrillic and then translated back into Latin characters. RWJ
×
×
  • Create New...