Jump to content
CoinPeople.com

one-kuna

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,300

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by one-kuna

  4. Non-abrazing coin cleaning/saving

    in Russian Coin Forums

    Posted

    May be russian copper coins have a secret content added to the copper :confus:

     

    I must share the story dedicated to my history school teacher recently passed away.

    So, he said: when russians were involved in WWII, there were orders from russian government to the all soviet scientists to make a steel for tank T-34 more resistable against shoting.

    So, once at one ceremony, where high government officials were present during boiling steel, one talant (old) man started sing "international" and look at the top on the wall where the Stalin portrait was and everyone supported him. Before that he ordered earliar to deliver few boxes of wax candles to him and place them right before the lab stow where the new kind of steel was prepared to be boiled. While singing and looking as everyone else to Stalin, he was breaking wax candles and throwing them to the stowe. One from the official accidently noticed that and there were no more secret what to add to the steeel to be more resistable for a tank. The new kind of steel was succefullly tested later and that is how T-34 was very succeful tank in WWII. :bthumbsup:

     

    Can be above related to russian copper so something was added we do not know yet :shock:

  5. Non-abrazing coin cleaning/saving

    in Russian Coin Forums

    Posted

    I think several issues are being conflated in this discussion. It started with the growth of a green substance on a copper/bronze coin, a growth that is contagious. That growth is known as bronze disease and is a chemical reaction that does spread to other coins. It requires moisture to progress. Super heating the coin will stop its progress, but discolor the coin. It does not stop the disease, as it will start reacting again when moisture is present. The processes referred to in the link are chemical processes to neutralize the chemical reaction. There is no way to avoid pitting or other damage since the chemical process has already started to break down the copper when it becomes visible. Neutralizing the chemical process is the only way to stop its spread and have a good shot at preventing its return (and spread to other coins). Since it has already produced a chemical breakdown of copper by the time it becomes visible, damage has already occurred.

     

    The other branch of the conversation seems to deal with "dirt" and "patina." Dirt can be removed without pitting or other serious damage to the coin. Patinas have already formed a reaction with the coin's surface, so removing a patina will necessary create some damage, even if its not readily apparent. Dirt and patina can be removed or left in place and not threaten your other coins. Bronze disease, on the other hand, needs to be dealt with immediately or the coin isolated from the rest of your collection.

    Thank you, very clear explained.

    I can't hide my curiocity but could you share if you have tried to clean coins on your own and have you had succesuful results, thanks again :)

     

    P.S. I am using oil so far with no success.

  11. 1970 5 kopek - or maybe not?

    in Russian Coin Forums

    Posted

    I'm afraid you are not well informed in this case (at least less informed than about past auctions catalogues).

    In the "only-one-you-believe" work by Fedorin (3rd edition) there are no varieties of this coin, only one main type (Fedorin listed it at "50 ye").

    5 kop. 1970 is the most scarce date out of 1961-1991 series, and it's current market value is around $150-$200 in VF-XF condition.

    So there is some reason to counterfeit it: simply in order to transfer "50 cents" (actually, even less than that) into $150.

    this particular coin is in bad condition;

    there is no proof that a date was altered on this particular coin;

    in my book second edition it is listed as 25 ye;

    in real life, who and where in Russia reported a counterfeit of this coin? :ninja:

  12. 1970 5 kopek - or maybe not?

    in Russian Coin Forums

    Posted

    I bought this 5 kopek coin dated 1970 and this particular coin is a rather tough key date.

     

     

    I didn't think much about this coin but was happy as it is a tough key date that I was looking for a while. However when I glanced at the photo I took, there is a "scratch" on the number "0" which for one second I thought was a possibility of a re-engraved 6 to 0. It would honestly suck but I have no other examples of a 1970 or 1976 5 kopek to compare it with.

     

    19705knegativea.jpg

     

    What do you think?

    it is very much doubts that who wants to counterfeit absolutly unrare coin in such condition?

    just a little years ago these coins were available in brooklyn at 50 cents or less each,

    and there were better condition that this one of 1970,

    also by the only one I believe authorized work by Fedorin this one has a variey which estimated at 25 y e

    but I do not know if this is a variant presented by you :ninja:

  13. Just interesting reading

    in Russian Coin Articles

    Posted

    Should Russia or a Russian interest group bring it back home? In many museums around the world, priceless artifacts from other nations exist away from their homelands. What should be done? Should anything be done?

    back to 1960th, the whole GM collection was offered to the Hermitage for $1.7 millions (a catalog was compiled), but after reviewing it, russians experts from Ministry of Culture (including Hermitage fellows) said that they do not want it :ninja:

  16. 5 kopeks 180. by V. Koretsky

    in Russian Coin Articles

    Posted

    With kindly permission of Mr. Dieter Gorny of

    GORNY & MOSCH Giessener Munzhandlung

    Maximiliansplatz 20, D-80333 Munchen

    Germany

    e-mail: info@gmcoinart.de

    www.gmcoinart.de

    I am very glad to place this very interesting article in russian numismatics (in english !) published in one of recent

    Gorny & Mosch auction catalog 183, pp 196-197

    one-kuna

     

     

    5 kopeks 180. by V. Koretsky

     

     

    The first mention about copper 5 kopeks coin with uncommon date “180.” minted by Ekaterinburg mint are contained in II part of book of known Russian numismatist S.I. Chaudoir “Review of Russian money and foreign coins which were used in Russia from ancient times” . SPB. 1837. Chaudoir had not unfortunately given its image but had referred on a piece having been in Hermitage. Distinguished collectors and connoisseurs of Russian coins, contemporaries of Chaudoir J. Reichel and G.Lisenko also had not this coin. In any case this coin was not mentioned as in systematic catalogue of Reichel’s collections which was issuing in 1842-1847, as in extant Lisienko’s catalogue-diary.

    The description of this coin, also without its image, has secondary appeared in 1883 in the first edition of Chr. Giel’s “The tables of Russian coins”. And only in 1898 in “Corp of Russian Coins” of Grand Duke George Michailovitch for the first time the front and back its sides were shown. In 1904 description of 5 kopeks coin “180.” was included into book “Russian coins struck from 1801 to 1804” by Chr. Giel and A. Ilyin.

    The amplified searches of unusual 5 kopeks coin, which started atier appearance of a Giel’s and Ilyin’s catalogue, which is a main manual until now for collectors of Russian coins, have stipulated appearance of diverse fakes, many of which were described as variants in numerous trade catalogues. This circumstance and also several contradictory opinions of the largest connoisseurs of Russian coins have induced us to engage in a research of Ekaterinburg’s piatak and fakes under it.

    By Chaudoir’s opinion Ekaterinburg’s piatak is a “trial piatak on which in the denotation of a year the last digit is not exposed”. I. Tolstoy and soviet experts A. Tolmachev-Sosnovsky, A. Vershinin and many others ad here’d the same opinion. Georgy Mikhailovich, objecting Shoduar, wrote: “It seems, by sort both sides of a coin, which was struck out by rusty stamps, that it is not a trial one, but by error last digit of a year was not exposed. In any case it is not a novodel and was struck not later then 1810”. Therefore, categorical opinion of Chaudoir the blurred statement was opposed, from which follows, that its author cannot name the reason of appearance of mysterious piatak.

    In the matier: not trial coin, not novodel, not serial coin (by error), what then? We are converted to the facts.

    The government of Aleksander I by the decree dated October 1, 1801 has announced the release of coins of a new sample, including of copper coins, for which was saved a traditional set of nominals of 18 century and old coin roll (16 roubles from pood of copper). The Ekaterinburg mint began the release of the coins in 1802 on samples authorized by the decree.

    However on coins, dated 1803, determined by the decree, figures are few changed: on a face side the eagle is less thrown, legs of eagle are hardly lowered, on tail plumage a cross of St. Andrew’s order is precisely seen, 5 rounded dots on concentric linear circles near borders are located more evenly. The dot atier last digit of date appear, which are the same as the dot atier digit “5”of nominals and atier characters “E” and “M” and they are larger and rounded.

    The special feature of placement of fi ve rounded dots, as on front, and on reverse sides of coins, dated 1803, consists that on equal distances (25 mm on chord) are located only 4 dots, and fitih one, which is the neighboring from the right with most upper one is deleted from it only on 18,5 mm. The precisely same placement of dots is traced on piataks dated 1804 and even 1805, not speaking already about the other details of figures. It is represented indisputable; that the indicated circumstance testifies that in 1803 a large backlog of stamps was carried out which three years was used.

    Reached up to our time genuine copies of piataks E. M. “180.”, it is doubtless, where struck by one of stamps, occurring from indicated reference matrix, and before in a stamp there was punched last digit of given (next) year. But such genuine copies we, with full on the basis, may consider as trial coins in difference not only from counterfeit, but also from made on same Ekaterinburg mint other piataks, about which the speech start below.

    Distinguish two sorts so-called novodels: the copies which were struck in later time by old stamps saved on the mint and those copies which were made all over again (if old stamps were not saved). To the expert it is easy to distinguish novodel from the original coin, but quite otien the distinction is so great, that appreciably even for amateur collector.

    By data, resulted in the Demeny’s article “ In a history of a Ekaterinburg mint “, this mint on commission of ministry of the finance several times produced large sets of novodels. So, in 1840 a full collection of coins from 1757 until 1840 was made. As on a mint many of old stamp were not saved, on having been available samples of old coins were made new stamps, which on execution of the order were destroyed. In 1856 the order on 1740 coins, since 1726 was executed. Missing stamps were made on samples of coins, and it is possible, on figures or description from the book of Chaudoir. These time stamps which were made were not destroyed, as the chief of Ural factories has ordered to keep them on a case of repetition of the orders. In 1870 the mint has made four collections of coins, since 1726 for All-Russia exhibition of manufactures in

    St. Petersburg. In all cases only copper coins were made.

    It is impossible to pass by that fact, that by 1837 one copy of piatak E. M. “180.” was known only, and to time of appearance of the mentioned before book of Giel and Ilyin (1904), the authors did not consider possible to give this piatak a degree of a rarity above second (at 4-degrees system). Obviously, they had for this purpose enough basis. This implies, that the Ekaterinburg mint has enlarged number of known piataks which were minted at execution of the orders of ministry of the finance by a saved pair of old stamps. Just by one pair. In than convinces a deterioration of stamps. As gradually wore out stamps, it is possible to observe even on three shown illustrations. The copies, were doubtlessly minted in an indicated sequence. Minting by one pair is easily determined by presence of identical individual defects. So, on faces of all three

    copies to the leti of a crown dot convexity is visible. This dot corresponds to a deepening, derivated in a stamp from crumbling of metal. The same one is on the back in the right part of a separating bar (under the second character “K” in a word “kopecks”) and in other places. However there is no guarantee that the mint, by exhausting of possibility to mint piataks by the order of ministry of the finance because of full deteriorations of a having been available pair of old stamps, has not made new (for example, in 1856 or 1870 ), distinguished from the original. Pertinently to result the statement known Russian numismatist M. Demeny: “the mint could prepare coins, even not struck in known year, because did not know, which just the sorts of a known type were minted and which were not minted”. Just such coins meant, when speech about unlegitimity to consider their genuine and the more so to equate them to trial.

    Counterfeit copies, plenty of which appeared atier appearance of Giel’s and Ilyin’s book, it is possible to divide into two groups: corrected copies of 1802 without last digit of date and dot atier it; the same one, but with three dots atier “180” and copies, at which as a basis for falsification have useded piataks of 1803. At last case at all there is no dot atier “180” or are available: one large rounded dot, two dots or three dots. The fakes litier many collections, including museum’s collections. So in Historical Museum in Moscow 2 copies of the first group (the first one is without a dot atier “180”, the other one is with three

    dots), 2 copies of the second group, which were made from piataks minted atier 1803 (the dot atier date is removed), 2 copies by this groups with rounded dot atier “180”, but with roughly deleted last digit of date, copy this groups with two dots and copy with three dots are kept. Similarly to two last fakes copies are available in Hermitage, but they are in a collection of counterfeit coins.

    Coming back to quoted earlier opinions of two large connoisseurs of Russian coins, it is necessary to tell, that Chaudoir, referring on piatak, which was kept in Hermitage in 1837, was unconditional right, considering it as a trial copy, George Michailovitch in 1898, dealing already not with the one - single copy, should not run into an error, by finding piataks E. M. “180.” as accidentally released in circulation through an oversight of staff of the mint. However he has found minting by a rusty stamp and this is the only one, in than he was right.

     

     

    *****

  17. Novodel

    in Russian Coin Forums

    Posted

    Isn't a Denga 1/2 Kopek?

    I think that's how they listed it in their cert verification and there was only one graded(this particular one)

     

    yes it is - denga is 1/2 kopek, but not kopek (1 kopek);

    the picture showed in this thread is signed that it is a kopek novodel from Hesselgesser collection,

    however Brekke number 377 is correct and corresponds to Denga :ninja:

×
×
  • Create New...