Mintage question.....1894 rouble

[worldcoinguy]

This might be a silly question, but if the official mintage of the 1894 rouble is 3,007, why do they pop up on eBay every other month? I understand the grades are often VF/EF, but I would not expect to see them with any frequency given the very low mintage. Were there restrikes on this date possibly?

[bobh]

Definitely a very good question. I have been wondering a bit about this myself lately -- however, since I don't collect Alexander III roubles (yet), I have put off answering this. Your question has aroused my curiosity, so I looked at Rylov/Sobolin, Krause-Mishler and Julian.

 

The mintage figures given by Rylov/Sobolin are in units of 1 thousand. If you take them at face value, 1894 would be the highest number of all of this series (3,007,000). However, Krause-Mishler has the same digits; but either they forgot to multiply by 1,000 for 1894 (the last year the were minted), or else Rylov/Sobolin forgot to divide by that figure.

 

Now if you look at the mintage numbers for 5 rouble gold coins of Nicholas II, you will discover that Krause-Mishler has made a very similar mistake for the 5 rouble gold coins of 1900: Both Rylov/Sobolin and Severin list that year's mintage at 31,077,000, but KM has only 31,000 with a correspondingly higher price! If Rylov/Sobolin and Severin are right, 1900 would be the most common 5 rouble coin in existence. The frequency at which it appears, as you say about 1894 roubles, clearly indicates that it is not nearly as rare as the numbers in Krause-Mishler would suggest. And since Krause-Mishler has many other mistakes (such as publishing the wrong weight in grams for 5 rouble gold coins minted after 1897), I would tend to believe Severin and Rylov/Sobolin. Unfortunately, may otherwise excellent references do not publish mintage figures at all (Uzdenikov, for example). Uzdenikov gives no scarcity indication for 1894 at all, BTW.

 

RW Julian has a scarcity rating of "S" for 1894 roubles; however, there are also no mintage figures given there. We must remember that Aleksander III died in November, 1894, and by that time mintage figures were given for fiscal years and not calendar years. Mr. Julian writes this note about the 1894 roubles:

It is likely that most of the roubles dated 1894 were struck in early 1895 before the dies for Nicholas II were prepared.

Maybe RW Julian would care to elaborate on this?

[RW Julian]

Definitely a very good question. I have been wondering a bit about this myself lately -- however, since I don't collect Alexander III roubles (yet), I have put off answering this. Your question has aroused my curiosity, so I looked at Rylov/Sobolin, Krause-Mishler and Julian.

 

The mintage figures given by Rylov/Sobolin are in units of 1 thousand. If you take them at face value, 1894 would be the highest number of all of this series (3,007,000). However, Krause-Mishler has the same digits; but either they forgot to multiply by 1,000 for 1894 (the last year the were minted), or else Rylov/Sobolin forgot to divide by that figure.

 

Now if you look at the mintage numbers for 5 rouble gold coins of Nicholas II, you will discover that Krause-Mishler has made a very similar mistake for the 5 rouble gold coins of 1900: Both Rylov/Sobolin and Severin list that year's mintage at 31,077,000, but KM has only 31,000 with a correspondingly higher price! If Rylov/Sobolin and Severin are right, 1900 would be the most common 5 rouble coin in existence. The frequency at which it appears, as you say about 1894 roubles, clearly indicates that it is not nearly as rare as the numbers in Krause-Mishler would suggest. And since Krause-Mishler has many other mistakes (such as publishing the wrong weight in grams for 5 rouble gold coins minted after 1897), I would tend to believe Severin and Rylov/Sobolin. Unfortunately, may otherwise excellent references do not publish mintage figures at all (Uzdenikov, for example). Uzdenikov gives no scarcity indication for 1894 at all, BTW.

 

RW Julian has a scarcity rating of "S" for 1894 roubles; however, there are also no mintage figures given there. We must remember that Aleksander III died in November, 1894, and by that time mintage figures were given for fiscal years and not calendar years. Mr. Julian writes this note about the 1894 roubles:

Maybe RW Julian would care to elaborate on this?

 

The original premise is right, the 1894 rouble is far too common for a mintage of only 3,007. (This is the correct fiscal 1894 figure.) The same is true for the 25 and 50 kopecks of 1894 but in these two cases there are no figures at all for 1894. It seems highly likely, therefore, that the date 1894 was held over into 1895 for these three values until the dies for Nicholas II were ready. All three 1894 coins are reasonably common and not hard to obtain.

 

RWJ

[RW Julian]

Now if you look at the mintage numbers for 5 rouble gold coins of Nicholas II, you will discover that Krause-Mishler has made a very similar mistake for the 5 rouble gold coins of 1900: Both Rylov/Sobolin and Severin list that year's mintage at 31,077,000, but KM has only 31,000 with a correspondingly higher price! If Rylov/Sobolin and Severin are right, 1900 would be the most common 5 rouble coin in existence. The frequency at which it appears, as you say about 1894 roubles, clearly indicates that it is not nearly as rare as the numbers in Krause-Mishler would suggest. And since Krause-Mishler has many other mistakes (such as publishing the wrong weight in grams for 5 rouble gold coins minted after 1897), I would tend to believe Severin and Rylov/Sobolin. Unfortunately, may otherwise excellent references do not publish mintage figures at all (Uzdenikov, for example). Uzdenikov gives no scarcity indication for 1894 at all, BTW.

 

The listing in K-M is in error and the mintage is 31 million for fiscal 1900 This of course covers a heavy mintage in the latter part of 1899 so it is not clear just how common the 1900 is using these numbers.

 

RWJ

[bobh]

Thanks very much for the helpful advice, RW.

The original premise is right, the 1894 rouble is far too common for a mintage of only 3,007. (This is the correct fiscal 1894 figure.)

Does this mean that in this case, K-M is correct and Rylov/Sobolin are wrong by a factor of 1,000?

[RW Julian]

Thanks very much for the helpful advice, RW.

Does this mean that in this case, K-M is correct and Rylov/Sobolin are wrong by a factor of 1,000?

 

Yes, the correct official figure is 3,007, which is confirmed by Uzdenikov in his 1995 book on mintage figures as well as other sources. My copy of Rylov/Sobolin is loaned out at present so I cannot comment on that one.

 

However, I have rechecked the 1900 gold five roubles and the matter is not quite as simple as thought. Both Severin and Uzdenikov use 31,077,013 as the mintage but the U.S. Mint report furnished a figure of 20,277,013 based on date provided by the director of the St. Petersburg Mint. (This report was reprinted in the Journal of the Russian Numismatic Society No. 80, summer 2005.) Normally the mint director furnished the usual fiscal-year figures but in this case might have supplied calendar-year data.

 

RWJ