sigistenz

With silver coins it happened that edges were filed for the metal - but I think it is unlikely with copper, it would not be worthwhile. As to "my" edge, I think the filing was done to make disappear the seam. I have no idea how the pimples got on the edge. I only discovered them on my high resolution scan. Maybe I should have inspected it closer. I am not a metallurgist. I did not notice any other suspicious traces. My intention was to be fast to convince the seller to accept the coin back for a refund. Now it's too late. Sigi

I don't think so. To apply the edge device, for example (//////////////) or (XXXXXXXXXXXXXX), the planchet was squeezed between the two bars of the edging machine. The two bars were then moved one opposite to the other. This turned the planchet and impressed the edge. If he planchet was not perfectly circular, portions of the edge were left unimpressed. But what we see here on Eugene's picture was removed deliberately. When copying a coin by casting, two halves of the mould are necessary, one for the averse, the other for the reverse. The molten metal is then filled into them. A more or less distinct seam between the two half moulds will remain on the edge all around. To conceal the cast, the seam has to be removed (filed away), like on Eugene's coin. A legitimate explanation for edges like this would be wear down from circulation - Eugene's coin did not see enough circulation for an edge like this. Sigi

Dag Dingendoener en welkom! 1853 is the rarest and most expensive date. As Russian coins have been booming for quite some years, everybody in Russia is aware thereof. Of course any flea market dealer will look into one of their good and cheap catalogs first. Chances to buy a real coin below value are very dim. Your coin looks suspicious because of the strange uneven (=artificial?) toning. A sharp closeup could tell more. NOW MY QUESTION: HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT IT IS FAKE? Please tell us what you found out Thank you, Sigi

Eugene, I don't have the coin anymore, it is on its way back to the seller. Now that you mention it, I took another closer look at my remaining scans. And yes, indeed, there seem to be very small bubbles (warts, pimples or whatever) on the sides as well but too small for a magnifying glass. In hand the coin looked pretty nice, smooth, slighly shining, nice color. Now it's clear that it is a cast job. Better than what I've seen before. But the edge still seems to be problematic for the forgers. From now on I will aks to see the edge before bidding Thank you for the useful question! Sigi

Hello Ron, as you may know the weight standard for those coins was 51.19g. Little care was taken for the indivual pieces. The batch weight had to be correct, i.e. there had to be 320 of them per pood. Individual weight differed between about 20% above and 20% below standard. The pieces in my collection weigh between 40 and 65 grams. My two1790KM 5kop. weigh 48.7 and 48.8 grams, which is pure incidence and does not mean that the 1790KMs were lighter than standard. So weight is of little help as long as it stays around 51.19 grams. The same applies to diameter or thickness of the planchet. My two (of course genuine as all my coins) 5kop1782KM measure 41 and 43mm across. So the diameter does not mean a thing, either. As I said the above forgery looks absolutely convincing as to design and color. Even in my hand with my 40 years' experience no doubt arises. A fine coin in very nice shape. Only the edge gives it away and not at first glance, either. As my close up scan showed some clear spots I took out the microscope. And only then the bubbles could be seen. I hoped my picture of the edge showed that the bubbles are not holes (as of porosity) but do stand out. That made clear that there could not have been any tooling of the edge. The bubbles cannot be explained by the coining process either. Copper sheets were rolled to about the required thickness, then planchets were cut (stamped) out of them. For the impression of the edge design the planchet was rolled between two parallel bars. No way for outstandíng bubbles thus. BTW it happened that genuine coins missed by mistake the edge rolling pocess, plain edges occur. But no outstanding bubbles possible with planchets that had been stamped out of a rolled sheet of copper. All this is to say that weight, diameter, pictures of both sides of this forgery don't give it away. This must be the copy of a genuine coin anyway. It is the edge. And only the edge. I feel honored to be considered a volunteer. As such I'd insist that the true edge of a forgery be given the importance it deserves. Pictures of only both (true looking) sides are of little help, they may even lead to confusion. Ron, as you know English is not my mother tongue. I don't know if I appear harsh - that is not my intention. I want to be constructive. Best, Sigi

Ron, I confused French and English both of which are foreign languages for me. I did want to say "filed down" but the French "limé" came into my mind. I now corrected my post above. The absence of the edge alone may mean that somebody tooled it away. That was my first impression. Only under the microscope the bubbles appear. Yes, the color is very tempting. In hand the coin looks perfectly alright - and I have seen a lot. Regards, Sigi

I won a nice coin at eBay but was disappointed when receiving it - the edge looked like filed down all around. See my picture above. The seller had not shown the edge. Who could have tooled the edge - and what for? The microscope reveals the secret: there are bubbles on the edge This means it has not been filed down. We have to do with another fake. Even under a magnifying glass, the coin looks perfectly all right. Only the microscope shows the bubbles of the cast. The seller promises to take the item back for a refund. Enjoy watching Sigi PS: Weight is 53.1grams which is in the normal weight range for these coins

Hi, nice pictures now. Your 1778EM is a scarce variant displaying a later eagle. In 1779 a new eagle design was introduced. There was much mixup in 1778 and 1779 with old, new and intermediate eagles. Some die combinations are scarce, others rare. Yours is an intermediate eagle. Welcome to the posse hunting down the large 5 kopeks. Sigi

Yes, R.W., I am grateful, too, for the fine job with the RNS magazine over so many years. You cannot have got rich over it, as the postage stamps alone to Europe about equaled the annual subscription fees. Not to speak of paper, printing, etc., and of course all the time and heart blood you put into it. Thank you again and all the best, Sigi

Yes, Alex, I am afraid so. As there was only one more bidder, that must have been you. Sorry, you sniped only in the last seconds and I wouldn't have decoded eBay's mutilation of your pseudo anyway. Hope you will be lucky next time . Best, Sigi

This 1779EM 5 kopek displays the 1778 eagle. The 9 of the date shows traces of the upper corners of a former 7, and also the lower portion of what must have been a 6 and/or a 5. Enjoy, Sigi

I haven't seen posts of R.W.Julian for quite a while. Now his collection appears in the upcoming mail bid sale of World Wide Coins of California. It makes me feel kind of sad. I hope all is well with him? Sigi -

Ron, I am sorry - I am not an expert , maybe an experienced collector. I do not care about all the 228 Siberian coins but only about the large 10 kopeks of which there are 15 dates with some major variants. I do not have an archive of counterfeits. When I see a nice Siberian 10 kopek I compare it with what I have. Doubtful coins I try to hold in hand first or have them sent on approval. I compare with Michailovitch, Yusupov, Brekke collection, Aalborg collection, MiM, m-dv.ru, etc. So far, I think I could steer clear of fakes. But what is there still to come.... Respectfully, Sigi

Oops Eugene! That I had not checked. It's a challenge. Give me time, I'll check the pictures I can find. Very interesting point! Best, Sigi -

It is not as easy as that, I'm affraid. With copper coins there is an enormous variety of more or less distinct variants. Your two coins on top (both considered genuine) are from different dies, compare the height of the left animal's tail tip, it is different with the two coins. Take the date "1771" - again very different. On the cipher side compare the tips of the laurel leaves - pointed with one coin, rounded with the other. I had the lower left (fake) coin in hand, examined it closely. I am convinced that both sides are exact copies of an existant coin. That is the danger. From a picture you can no longer tell. You got to get the coin in your hand to examine it very closely, before paying (or not). Sigi -

In the RNS days the fakes still looked like fakes, easily detectable be the mere sight of their black and white picture. Those were the days.... Sigi -

Yes, I remember a lot of 4 of those about 5-6 years ago (a 5kop1793/6EMPaul, a 5kop1794AM and two others which I do not recall). A German collector had bought them from an Estonian eBay seller and asked my opinion. As they were obviously fake, he returned them. I had scanned them and presented them here. Unfortunately I cannot find my posting and pictures of the time. Sigi -

Yes, I have a similar one of the same date and mint. Note the E on the eagle's tail and also (less distinct) the 88 in the "II" of the cypher. Sigi

This color should ring alarm bells, see eBay link below. The seller was nice enough to provide additional pictures, see them below. On the edge a seam is clearly seen. It is there where the two halves of the mould met. We have to do with a galvano. I informed the seller, let's see if there will be a reaction. Sigi http://www.ebay.it/i...E:X:AAQ:IT:1123

OOPS - my above post came a 2nd time - delete

The edge gives it away this is a cast counterfeit! The edge should be slightly convex but it is cylindric. Besides the edge looks terribly worn which does not correspond at all with the little wear of both sides (see the crowns). Then there are the bubbles, suggesting a cast. Now the bizarre underweight finds its explanation, too. Thank you for this lesson, settembrini. Sigi

A most interesting item - thank you for showing. It looks like the real thing, but what on earth is it covered with? It needs to be stripped but what would it look like when naked?? Even more intriguing is the unbelievable underweight. I checked my 21 Siberian 10 kopeks - the lightest of them weighs 59.7 grams, which is a mere 9% short of the official 65.5 grams. I do not recall having heard of one as light as yours. But with Russian coins you never know.... Your coin must be pretty thin. Would you show the edge? Maybe two or three different views? Thank you, Sigi -

Hi Bob, I've made that experience often enough. Going to an auction and being disappointed by the coin in hand. But if you had not gone you would worry that someone got it so cheap!! After all it is better to pay some 100+CHF for the experience, than paying much more for an insatisfactory coin. As to Europe (the Schengen countries) - it is good to live inside. I live in Belgium. When I take my bicycle for the 25km to the German town of Aachen (=Aix la Chapelle), I cross the Dutch border and pass through the Dutch town of Vaals, then the German border for Aachen. The borders have become symbolic, no customs, no border guards, nobody cares what's in your pocket or baggage. And the money is the same everywhere. I think that is a real progress. Switzerland is welcome to join the Schengen countries, but the Swiss people won't. Best, Sigi

Thank you, Steve! An example is the Siberian 10kop1781KM always attributed RARE. In fact it is one of the most common dates. BTW: I just took a look at m-dv.ru They recorded 1758MM 4x 1759MM 9x 1760MM 12x 1761MM 8x (!) Isn't that funny? Best, Sigi

Thank you, Bob, it worked! As to Munich, I wish you luck. What you are after will probably be a Nicholas II beauty. But as I don't know your collection it is difficult to guess - ah - did you win in lotto (for the 25 Rubles?). Hope to meet you some day! Regards, Sigi -