RW Julian

Hi I need your help! Do yo know what is the value of silver dollar 1840 MINT MARK (CARSON CITY) SEATED LIBERTY? and also I want to know if this coin is fake because is very rare! If it is not fake I want to know the value!

I have one in hands! Thanks!

The Carson City Mint did not open until January 1870. These dollars with the wrong mintmark/date

combinations are mostly made in China.

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.

Thanks Bob.

Now I see that your 2008 Journal article references your JRNS73 7-pager devoted to the 1807-AT. I wasn't aware of that article and will now read it...certainly a lot of story with that coin!

Are you aware of an 1806-AT mentioned anywhere else? Also, I have to wonder what is the basis for Bitkin's R4 listing?

Finally I'll have to check the ANS copy of Ball VIII (1932) to see if by chance prices were written in, as they were in many other catalogs I have from that period. My catalog has no prices, nor does the Heidelberg copy.

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.

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.

i posted some known, credible facts from the russian numismatic history writen by Smirnov and Spasskiy, and bunch of others, which have never mentioned and confirmed existence of gold piece...

 

some russian experts say that by looking at a picture only is not enough guarantee to confirm that it is genuine... and they are right...

 

one of them immediately stated that this medal was recently made in Zelenograd, Russia, and another one noted that this medal would be made much better in Kiev...

 

to be continued...

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

This is a very interesting point. Does "presumption of innocence" apply to coins/medals? Is a coin presumed innocent (genuine) until proven guilty (fake) or the other way around? I am intrigued.

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

so far I do not see any creditible evidences from you that a medal is genuie, just general review and possible imagination...

my real facts are not discussed straight...

for example, what could you say about the historical fact that a jeton was given to Alexander III when he visited and observed grand duke collection, didn't he deserve to get a gold medal? Alexander III Romanov was given a little tiny jeton only?...that is it?...who can believe in that?...the real fact (explanation) of that is that there was no medal in gold - that is a fact!...

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

article was published in number 4 an 5, sale's ad in number 7 and has no direct connections with its article...

what I do understand is that above imaginations on possible existence of a gold piece are imaginations only...

to be continued...

When an item is offered for sale and there was a recent article on the subject, then

there is a direct connection.

RWJ

does anyone can demonstrate an example of such valuable gold piece among russian medals with same finish at that time?

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

yes, dies were in grand duke possession, but please, if this gold medal was so valuable to him (as per auction consignor), why he did not pack it with its dies (or at list his numismatic comissioner Mokhrovskyi) with the rest of coins and medals, even he was being sent to the war to observe the russian army (1914)...

 

For example, Giel's jetons were advertised and sold in different variants in Staraya Moneta: aluminum, green copper, yellow copper, dark copper, gold-like, silver-like, etc,, but Visitor medal in silver only...

 

Also there was a comprehensive article on grand duke Visitor medal issue and its dies in Staraya Moneta, moreover, a silver medal was offered for sale at 15 rubles through Staraya Moneta (1910, #7), since that time neither Kopylov over 40 numismatic auctions before 1918 or any other numismatic dealers, collectors and periodics /literature have never mentioned on such gold piece...(neither lead and tin and others)...

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

how would you explain a fact that the all relief elements like horseman and such are in excellent condition but fields are left unpolished...gold medal dated 1888...

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

With the estimate $30000 this unknown in gold up to today medal of the grand duke Georgii Mikhailovich to the VISITOR was sold for $40000 on recent New York sale auction XXI, lot 1327. Some prospective buyers who really wanted such medals did not buy it due to medal provenance and its condition. However some folks stated that it was genuine. Some top experts in russian numismatics like Kopylov, Smirnov, Spasskij, etc., should have known the fact of existence of gold medal...but it was never published. The silver medals were given to the persons who visited and observed the grand duke collection of russian coins and medals, and these silver medals are known being sold at auctions from 1910 up to 2008, but gold?

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

Hi, literature says that these were minted in Ekaterinburg and Sestrorezk. Bitkin lists each of the 2 mints and uses exactly the same picture for each of them. I don't read Russian and have no access to Russian literature or forums. Have there been attempts to distinguish the two? There are, however distinct variants, take alone the style of the 5 in the date. All my Catherine II Sestrorezk 5kop coins (1763,1764,1765,1766) have wide netting on the edge, different from EM's narrow netting. Are there 1758-- 5 kop with wide netting and could that indicate the CM mint? See my coin below. From one reason or another it has an old plug at the right of the 58, and on the eagle side correspondingly at the left of the scepter. Has anyone an explanation for that? Thank you everybody for your comments to come. Sigi

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

good day,

any info with leningrad mint goznak 1974, 10 pieces of gold and silver variations,

its value, circulation, any collection, auction?

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

Actually, the list is not bad. It lists identifiable mint marks on so called "business strike" coins.

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