IMIS

Let's take the Sincona collection as an example. It was clearly put together based on date/mint and perhaps some other criteria. Its only limitation from what we have seen so far was the exclusion of gold/platinum coins. I believe it was stated by the auction house rep that it has about 10,000 coins. Correct me if I am wrong. The collection has a lot of duplicates, so the net quantity of unique coins is unknown, unless somebody does the math. It could be 3,000 and it could be 8,000, I just don't know. Let's say it is 5,000. If we had corresponding quantity for other known collections, we could determine the winner, based on quantity. The task would be to define a "unique" coin. Since there is more than one way to skin a cat we can use either Uzdennikov, or Bitkin, or something in between. With respect to condition, all coins need to be of 'collectable' grade, which varies from coin to coin based on that coin availability. The Sincona collection had too much rubbish for my taste. I certainly do not imply that the biggest collection is the best one. There have been many splendid collections of various sizes. I am just curious as to who was the most successful generalist of them all.

BKB, I do not think you understood my question. I am talking about percentage of completion of the entire coin Universe, giving equal weight to rare and common coins. The collection may exclude 50 -100 rarest coins, but can be approaching completion. Looking for a good benchmark Is this better?

Looking for a good benchmark. ............Brand collection was the mother of all collections in deed. ............I believe on a national level, there were several (?) individuals, who collected all of the US coins, VE III collected all of Italian coins, excl. Roman. Not sure about England, France, Germany. Apparently, nobody yet for Russia. You mentioned some famous pre-revolutionary collections. It will be interesting to know if anybody besides comrade Soudermann was able to accomplish a similar feat in more modern times.

With respect to GM, I do recall seeing his list of coins missing in his collection. Let me revise my question. Do you know how close subsequent collectors came to accomplishing this task? For simplicity we can stick to the core body of coins, excluding patterns, modules, novodels, etc. Did anybody collect, say 90%?

Are you saying they were all of equal size? Do you know how many distinct pieces were in those collections? I am trying to find out if there was a collection that included every coin of every date and every mint for the 1704 - 1917 period.

Does anybody know what was the most comprehensive collection of Russian Imperial coins ever assembled? GM and present company excluded. What was the coin count in that collection?

Not to worry, you will be able to buy many coins from this sale at a discounted price later.

Igor and Eugene: You are VERY serious scholars. But quoting pulp fiction...seriously?

This could be part of it, I just do not think it is that simple. When thinking about Paul, I keep visualizing an overstrike from your essay. I believe what we see it the very last image...

I take it you do not have any Leopold I coins;) http://coins.ha.com/itm/austria/world-coins/austria-leopold-i-2-taler-nd-1686-96-/a/3029-30328.s

Eugene, Please excuse my earlier sarcasm with regards to your remark about Paul and Knights Templar. After decades of rehabilitation culminating with Dan Brown's and Walt Disney's opuses Knights Templars are viewed as some really nice guys. Back in the XVIII c. they were still largely viewed (particularly in Russia) as convicted criminals. It is highly improbable that Paul was inspired by some people convicted for the crimes against both Church and State. To understand his belief system one needs to understand his environment first. The relationship between Russia and Catholic Orders, especially Knights Templar, is a fascinating subject to research, however it will be a tough slog to find anything meaningful without the access to some private archives. Also, I would not go as far as saying that he did not have a "Russian soul." Like Peter III, Paul admired Prussia, but unlike Peter III he did not despise Russia. Paul wanted to see Prussian type discipline in the Russian army and government. He saw Russian titled nobility, who were also the officers of the guards regiments as a an obstacle to his ideal state. One can not really blame him for disliking the guards, given their role in overthrowing governments. It is important to note that while Peter III's actions benefited the aristocrats, Paul's reforms were much more democratic and hurt the aristocrats. He ended up stepping on some very gentle toes, who could not take the discomfort he was causing them. ................................................................. Your findings about foreign influences on Russian coin design warrant an article, or perhaps a more fundamental study. Would love to have your book in my library p.s. Do you have an extra copy of the magazine with your article for sale?

The designs are similar, but the messages are worlds a part... Back to Paul. Justifying the murder of Peter III was easy; he was widely viewed as a national traitor, or as Eugene put it "he lacked Russian soul." Romanovs and their historians had somehow to justify the murder of Paul I. That proved to be very difficult. Virtually, all of Paul's actions were beneficial to the nation, therefore you could not paint him with the same brush as Peter III. So, they started cultivating the idea of Paul being not all together, sort of a family idiot. The problem is that Paul's actions paint a completely different picture of him. When Paul made political mistakes he had the sense and the courage to correct them even if it meant reversing his previous decisions. My point is that you need to dig a little deeper than Wikipedia when it comes to Paul to understand his intents. "In best traditions of royal family princes being romantic and looking for self-importance and self-realization before getting the throne, Russian Emperor Paul I has became a grandmaster of the Knights Order of Malta." I think you are oversimplifying things. Paul was 42, not 15 when he assumed the throne and his actions were logical and to the most part pragmatic. Chronologically, Paul was crowned in '96, became grandmaster in '98. Paul's true religious and political designs are still a big mystery. One thing we can say for sure: he had a big change in mind that displeased some very serious players. "In his search, he came across the Knights Templar slogan, that was a shortened version of the words of the psalm. He must have liked it and wanted to show the world that he was a true christian tzar, the defender of faith." I don't think Paul watched 'National Treasure.'

I must confess that Paul's large silver coins are among my favorite Russian Imperial coins. Just imagine, that in the age, when every king, prince, duke, or bishop with mint rights put the image of his lustrous self on the coin, Paul broke off with the tradition and put the words "Not onto us, not onto us, but in your name." Not sure this is the best translation. BTW, does anybody know why exactly Paul quoted a psalm on his coins? My theory is that Paul here conversing with Jesus. ("Give God God's and Cesar Cesar's." Not onto us, not onto us, but in (to) your name.)

I find it really interesting how the Romanov (?) family dynamics is reflected in coinage. Paul changed everything he could lay his hands on that reminded him of his mother, including coins: the iconic pyatak - gone, (Sorry, Sigi) St George - gone from the coins, portrait - gone from the coins, the eagle - also gone! Paul was not buried yet, when Alexander assured the court that everything will be back as in in his grandmother's days. Pyatak came back (Hello, Sigi) The eagle was back too. The portrait tried to come back really hard, but either the 'neck' was too long, or the 'collar' too tall will never know....so it did not make it.

He certainly supplied plenty of nice auction material

The first question about Peter's decrees that comes to mind is whether they were the products of his own beliefs? By many accounts, both Russian and foreign, Peter III was drunk considerable part of his waking hours. It is possible that he was signing papers without even understanding their meaning. From your list above all these decrees benefited the wealthiest segment of the nobility, not the population at large, or even the whole class of nobles. The abolishment of the office of the secret investigations reminds me of Khruschev's prohibition to investigate top members of the government. .........Did not work out well for either of them. Freedom of religion allowed some high nobles who had secretly converted to Catholicism come out of the closet. Did not mean much to the rest of the population. Historians site liberation of nobility as Peter's greatest achievement. In theory, the nobility was expected to develop industry, commerce and agriculture, pursue arts and sciences. In reality, they turned into a class of societal parasites so well depicted by authors from Saltykov-Schedrin to Gogol. Russian nobles (with the exception of landed princes) received their estates and serfs in exchange for their service to the state. Following Peter's decree, they no longer had to serve, but were keeping their estates and serfs. Now that's progressive!

Valentin Pikul's Potemkin was Catherine II's favorite, the real Grigoriy Aleksandrovich Potemkin was Catherine's husband and the co-ruler of the Empire during 1775 - 1791. You are absolutely right they were true partners in running the country (no sarcasm!), making every more or less important decision together. Hundreds, if not thousands of surviving documents show how the couple worked: the draft of the project would originate either with Potemkin, or Catherine, then it will be dispatched to the other party for inputs/critique, then sent back to the originator for more critique until the draft became the final document. They did have their areas of responsibility: GAPT first focused on the western provinces and later on his beloved Novorossiay; while Catherine ran the rest of the country. They also divided responsibilities for Russian foreign policy: Catherine dealt primarily with Western Europe, while Potemkin concentrated on Poland, Crimea and the Ottoman Empire. A little known fact, but China affairs also was part of his domain. Was Potemkin a "show off"? Well, he was..............but his incidents of showing off were well calculated political moves intended either to demonstrate Russia's superior state of finances, or recruit important political allies. Often such incidents were planned in advance and agreed upon with Catherine. I doubt it is possible to exaggerate Potemkin's achievement: 1) eliminating Russia's greatest nemesis for hundreds of years, 2) adding huge territories (from the Dnestr to Chechn'a), building cities, which later developed into crown jewels of the empire and modern day Russia and Ukraine, 3) defeating the Ottoman Empire with relatively little bloodshed , 4) promoting arts, sciences, commerce, industry, agriculture, 5) building a first class navy, etc. Not a single Romanov came even close to Potemkin in terms of achievements. Actually, Potemkin was one of only two Russian leaders that observers placed above their counterparts. "...could hardly stand a failure." I believe you are referring here to an episode in the beginning of Russian -Turkish war, when part of the Black Sea navy was destroyed by a storm, Potemkin panicked, lost faith in himself and begged Catherine to relieve him of his command. This episode reminds me of a similar episode in the beginning of GPW. When Germans took Minsk on the sixth day of the war and the Soviet Government found out about it from a foreign radio announcement, the chief of staff of the Red Army general Zhukov panicked and wanted to resign. (Some accounts say he even broke into tears during the meeting.) ...............One never knows what kind of tests life is going to throw at them. The important thing is that both men were able to gain control of their emotions and the situation and emerge victorious.

Sorry for the strange signs appearing in the text above. Not sure what happened.

<p>Eugene,</p> <p> </p> <p>First of all thank you for the detailed response and the essay. Truly enjoyed reading it and learned quite a bit. Has it been published anywhere?</p> <p> </p> <p>I am not sure I agree with some of your more general statements. <em> </em></p> <p> </p> <p><em>"Generally she did well, but would she get a country that was in the economical state of her predecessors, that they manage to get out of with careful monetary reforms, would she be able to do that, I have big doubts. Nonetheless the economic grows was programmed by her predecessors, she was lucky, and in spite of Cathrine's gift of choosing not the very brightest, but the very ego-centered favorites, that wanted to prove to her and themselves that they "can", but they not always were the best people for the job, and what their "could" had a much higher price by all aspects</em>."</p> <p> </p> <p>Actually, Catherine did get the country in pretty tough financial state. Granted, prudent fiscal and monetary policies of Anna and Elizaveta helped pull the country out of the abyss, where Peter's reforms had plunged it. However Elizaveta made two critical mistakes: she allowed corruption that Anna had significantly curbed to flourish at the same if not greater level than during the reign of her farther and she drove Russia into absolutely unnecessary bloody and costly war against Prussia. During the last years of her reign the treasury was bankrupt, the army unpaid, building projects unfinished. The Dutch bankers that Elizaveta approached for a loan as lenders of last resort, denied her application............ Catherine had to have good business and political acumen to reverse the situation.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>With respect to <em>"ego-centered favorites, that wanted to prove themselves," </em> Platon Zubov would be the only one who fits that description. Well, that was her twilight and perhaps we can forgive her..... With respect to her earlier favorites, I can think of only one instance when a favorite tried to prove he "could." I mean the unfortunate attempt by Grigoriy Orlov to negotiate peace with the Ottoman Empire during the first Russian-Ottoman war.</p> <p> </p> <p>In actuality, Catherine was quite good at separating her private life from her life as an autocrat and picking the right men for the job was her greatest skill.</p> <p>.................................................</p> <p>What progressive projects of Peter III do you have in mind?</p> <p> </p> <p> </p>

The official historiography glorifies Catherine, does not take Elizabeth very seriously and demonizes Anna. You seem to have a different view on these rulers. Can you please elaborate a little on your view point?

Nice! Is it typical for these coins to have a better struck reverse than obverse?

Good to hear from you, Kopeikin. Overall, I agree with your thinking. Just a couple of comments. Many luxury brands across various consumer categories were heavily discounted during 2009-2010. During that time period there were some sweet deals on really nice coins too. Collectors who have build their holdings over decades will do just that. I am not so sure about all sorts of profiteers who have been heating up the market lately by buying at one auction and reselling at the following auction. Some of these folks may have to sell.

ok, I will put a stake in the ground. I give it a 70%+ chance that we will see a buyer's market (excluding super low and super high price segments) this fall on. Any thoughts?

Where do you think the market for Russian coins will be heading later this year, given the external environment?

Contacting e-bay seems appropriate as well.