altyn

Hello bobh, if I were the lucky owner of this beauty, my primary concern would be its preservation. It is so easy to cause an irreversible damage just by accidentally dropping the coin, for instance. And somehow I never saw the plastic as impediment for enjoying a beautiful coin, but it may be just me, many people think otherwise.

Beautiful coin, bobh! Very likely among the best (and much better than mine). Do you plan to send it for grading to see what grade it can fetch?

No, I did not. I do not know anyone around here who would be knowledgeable enough to be asked. The coin had been returned to the seller.

How about window glass? Should be pretty even thickness and good surface. Any easy to obtain.

I use a high quality glass piece with a thickness of ~ 2mm and a very smooth surface.

I saw several 1909 coins with a relatively poor strike of the reverse. Among those is the upper coin shown in my first post. One can look for example at the central shield behind St. George. The vertical lines which form the shield's background came out only in the upper right corner of the shield. And this is a rather typical defect that I remember seeing a few times. So, it is really tempting to hypothesize that at least some of those coins represent bolsheviks' restrikes for which some old, corroded or crudely cleaned dies were used. The subject of 5 and 10 rouble restrikes by the Soviets in 1925-26 was among those addressed in a study published on Staraya Moneta. The author claims to have found some (minor) features resulting from a sloppy technology used by the Soviets that allow for identification of those restrikes. He lists 5 rouble restrikes for years 1897, 1898, 1899, 1902 and 1904, but not for 1909. Whether or not these conclusions can be regarded as absolutely accurate is questionable. The same author, although having meticulously listed six types of the obverse dies, did not discriminate between the two types observed for 1909 for which year he only listed the same die as for years 1903-4. Yet, according to this author, three different types of obverse dies were used by bolsheviks, and one can suspect that the actual number may be even higher. This is certainly in line with the notion by bobh that bolsheviks would use whatever happened to be around and in working condition.

These are lovely images! I like that softness of light that shows on many of them. However, if you want to make some of them look more contrast or to highlight details, then I suggest to try Kaiser halogen lamps. This is a very powerful light source (300W - and it becomes very hot, so be careful). This type of lighting is rather harsh, or I would say ruthless, showing all minute details of the field and devices but sometimes this is exactly what one needs. The set up is well described in the book by Mark Goodman "Numismatic photography".

Thank you Sigi. Those images were taken using a Kaiser 300W halogen light source. The objective was a Nikkor 105 mm macro lense. I would be happy to discuss the set up by PM

Here I put together the most obvious differences. Many thanks to bobh for pointing at the neck line (Adam's apple) difference!.

These are two coins from my collection. Several differences in the portrait are noticeable: the earlobes, the tip of the nose, and especially the shape of the nose bridge. These differences cannot be attributed to different light angles etc - I took both pictures pretty much the same way. Most coins shown on the m-dv site are of the upper type. The lower portrait is the same as seen on the 1903-1904 coins. Kazakov does not mention two types for this year. The Conros catalogue lists the upper type as their portrait B (249923) which it certainly is not (portrait B is an early type, named by Kazakov as 'die of 1898', and seen until 1902). The lower type is the Conros type C (191355, but their photo accessible from that link is not very good and one can't be sure). Most of the 1910 five-rouble coins shown in m-dv seem to be of the upper 1909 type, but in 1911 the portrait gets slightly changed again. I wonder if anybody has seen this the same way I do.

So, here is another example of a 'real life' (top, my image) vs. 'catalogue' case. Still, any suggestions on what to try to make a more 'cosmetic' picture (the catalogue style)? I am thinking about using a photographic tent or a lighting umbrella to produce a very diffuse light which is probably at the core of the issue. My images so far have been taken using a direct light coming from a halogen source.

Thank you Sigi. I do not have the Yusupov's catalogue - a clear deficiency in my library that needs to be remedied. Neither Bitkin nor Adrianov (2008) separate these two varieties, but then I found them in the Conros base catalogue. Actually, I am beginning to like it more and more.

Thank you for pointing at this difference. Are there just these two distinct sizes? Or a continuum?

I share this kind of affection...

NGC has already branded the coin as of questionable authenticity. They will most likely recognize it when they see it again and you will get the same verdict. If you still want it slabbed, you might want to consider sending it to PCGS instead. However, the doubt expressed by NGC should represent a sufficient reason for returning the coin to the dealer. And you would not be having a nagging feeling that the coin in your possession might be just an expensive fake. Just my opinion.