Question about early SPM mint overstrikes

[bobh]

I found this coin recently at a local dealer's shop:

 

5k-ekaterina-II-1763-SPM

 

Reading up on it in Brekke, he seems to imply that most of the early-date coins coming out of the St. Petersburg mint during the reign of Catherine II were overstruck on the earlier 10 kopek pieces, whereas the other mints used fresh planchets.

 

My coin does seem to show signs of overstriking, especially on the reverse (dated) side. However, this is this first SPM mint I ever owned, and the first overstruck Russian copper coin, so I can't really tell much about it -- especially because the planchet is quite porous and generally in pretty bad shape.

 

So my questions here are:

 

1. Were all of these coins overstruck, or did they also use regular planchets at the St. Petersburg mint in 1763?

 

2. If not, do you think mine is overstruck?

 

3. Do you think the edge has been overstruck? There seems to be some kind of doubling of the net pattern on at least part of the edge (I tried to get that in the picture I took of the edge), but that doesn't necessarily mean anything, of course.

 

4. What kind of premium do these coins bring over EM mints, for example? As usual, Krause isn't much help here.

 

Thanks for looking!

[gxseries]

Well done Bobh! Here is my opinion based upon the sales on ebay these two years and here is something I can comment on:

 

The denomination of 1762 10 kopeks is a really short lived event, only to be followed by another event in 1796 to be restruck later.

 

SPM coins in general are relatively easy to find but overstruck 5 kopeks are for some reason more difficult to find. SPM seemed to have overstruck more 4 kopeks. In my collection, which you can check on omnicoin, I have coins of 1763, 1765 and 1766, and they all seem to be from SPM (I cannot read the mintmark of one of the coins).

 

Now what is more interesting are the mints at that time. Before that time, only MM and SPB were present. In 1763, two new mints were introduced, that are EM and CM. AM was not present during this time.

 

Now what is more interesting is what Uzedenikov have noted about which mints that overstruck these coins. Ekaterinburg Mint, St. Petersburg, Sestroretsk Mint and other minor temporary mints:

Nizhny Novgorod (bishop's house)

Yaroslav

Porechye village of Smolensk Gubernia

Arkhangelsk

Polotsk

which unfortunately none of the temporarily mints placed its marks on the coins.

 

One of the key questions is why were there so many temporarily mints created to overstrike these coins. Indeed there are plenty of these overstruck coins, but most of them I have seen are overstruck 4 kopeks, not 10 or 2 kopeks.

 

Now back to answering your question,

 

1. Were all of these coins overstruck, or did they also use regular planchets at the St. Petersburg mint in 1763?

 

I so far haven't seen any of the coins in 1763 that used regular planchets. Perhaps there are, but I am not aware of.

 

2. If not, do you think mine is overstruck?

 

Yours seem to be a perfect example of an overstruck 10 kopek although it was quite difficult to make out. I can show you an outline when I have the time.

 

3. Do you think the edge has been overstruck? There seems to be some kind of doubling of the net pattern on at least part of the edge (I tried to get that in the picture I took of the edge), but that doesn't necessarily mean anything, of course.

 

Might be?

 

4. What kind of premium do these coins bring over EM mints, for example? As usual, Krause isn't much help here.

 

SPB and CM overstruck coins might be rarer although the only overstruck 10 kopeks are the 1788 MM coins... don't ask why I have two...

 

 

 

In general, the price of an overstruck 1762 10 kopeks, 5 kopeks coin is around 50USD or so, as there seems to be collectors who want to buy a sample of such as the original 1762 coin is REALLY expensive! Prices do vary accordingly to the clarity of the overall striking features, in particular, the underlying features as well as the overstruck features, which makes prices extremely difficult to determine. So if you got it way under that, you got a bargain!

 

Note, the price 50USD is only when the seller does know what he is selling as well as the buyer knows what he is purchasing. There are occasional times when the seller doesn't know what he is selling and hence the low price at times.

[bobh]

Thanks for your detailed reply, gxseries!

 

It is kind of a funny story, but typical of how it works sometimes: The seller had this coin in a tray with a label saying "1763-EM" for CHF 30 (about US-$25). Now if it were really an EM mint, I would never have spent that much on a coin in such poor condition, but I saw that they had the wrong mintmark and pointed it out to them. Although I knew it was scarcer than EM, neither of us knew exactly the premium of SPM vs. EM. But the seller was very appreciative of my honesty! So we pulled out the Krause catalog, and in Krause it has 1763-EM in VF = $20, 1763-SPM in VF = $30. Not such a big difference after all (according to Krause!), so the seller let me have it for what was on the price tag, or $25.

 

I think I'll be back again!

[STEVE MOULDING]

...Although I knew it was scarcer than EM, neither of us knew exactly the premium of SPM vs. EM....

 

 

Hello. A quick note.

 

Actually, believe it or not, 1763 CPM 5 Kopecks are more common than 1763EM 5 Kopecks (though not by much). There is a tendency (and I was once guilty of it) to say EM...COMMON!!! for any of Catherine's coins. A better counter-example, CPM 2 Kopecks from 1763-1766 are far more common than 1763-1766 EM 2 Kopecks.

 

While the 1763CPM 5K is slightly more common than the 1763EM, there is a premium for CPM's simply because to many collectors they're not just another EM. I'm the same and I'd pay a little more for a 1763 CPM (but not by much!)

 

Well congratulations on a nice coin

 

Steve

[gxseries]

Here is a crappy effort by me to illustrate why I saw this as an overstriked 10 kopek coin. Perhaps if you looked closed with a loupe, you might be able to reveal more details than what I could see with at the moment.

 

 

Now compare this to the real 10 kopek coins for sale here:

 

http://www.russiancoin.com/Peter-III-10K.html

 

Not for me any time soon...

[RW Julian]

Reading up on it in Brekke, he seems to imply that most of the early-date coins coming out of the St. Petersburg mint during the reign of Catherine II were overstruck on the earlier 10 kopek pieces, whereas the other mints used fresh planchets.

My coin does seem to show signs of overstriking, especially on the reverse (dated) side. However, this is this first SPM mint I ever owned, and the first overstruck Russian copper coin, so I can't really tell much about it -- especially because the planchet is quite porous and generally in pretty bad shape.

So my questions here are:

1. Were all of these coins overstruck, or did they also use regular planchets at the St. Petersburg mint in 1763?

2. If not, do you think mine is overstruck?

3. Do you think the edge has been overstruck? There seems to be some kind of doubling of the net pattern on at least part of the edge (I tried to get that in the picture I took of the edge), but that doesn't necessarily mean anything, of course.

4. What kind of premium do these coins bring over EM mints, for example? As usual, Krause isn't much help here.

 

1763 SPB 5 kopecks are generally seen with an undertype but no doubt exist on new planchets as well.

 

The CM piataks are another matter entirely. I have seen more than 50 of these pieces for 1763-1767 (at coin shows, museums, the internet, etc.) and, with one exception, none has shown any sign of an undertype despite documents that say all are overstrikes. Several years ago I obtained from dealer Alex Basok a 1763 CM piatak with a very clear 1762 undertype (the side with the value 10 kopecks) on one side. The rationale for this lack of undertypes appearing is that Sestroretsk (CM) had more powerful presses than St. Petersburg (SPM) but I have trouble with this theory having seen but one clear overstrike. It is difficult to believe that the undertypes could be obliterated all that well.

 

RWJ

[STEVE MOULDING]

An example 1763 CPM 5K overstrike

 

 

 

Another...

 

 

[sigistenz]

1763 SPB 5 kopecks are generally seen with an undertype but no doubt exist on new planchets as well.The CM piataks are another matter entirely. I have seen more than 50 of these pieces for 1763-1767 (at coin shows, museums, the internet, etc.) and, with one exception, none has shown any sign of an undertype despite documents that say all are overstrikes. Several years ago I obtained from dealer Alex Basok a 1763 CM piatak with a very clear 1762 undertype (the side with the value 10 kopecks) on one side. The rationale for this lack of undertypes appearing is that Sestroretsk (CM) had more powerful presses than St. Petersburg (SPM) but I have trouble with this theory having seen but one clear overstrike. It is difficult to believe that the undertypes could be obliterated all that well.RWJ

Dear Bob, you say that there exist 5kopSPM coins on new planchets as well. Didn't SPM act as an auxiliary mint at the time as regarded copper, overstriking the obsolete Peter III copper coins same as Moscow? As I specialize in the large coppers, I am eager to know all about it. Where do we know from that SPM struck also on new planchets? What intrigues me very much is the edge of the coin. It seems to be overstruck as well. Why did SPM feel the urge to overstrike the reticulated edge of 10kop1762 with another reticulated edge? My only 5kop1763SPM (variant with small mintmark letters) also has an overstruck edge. I will send a picture soon - well, I did put it in now. http://sigistenz.com/bilder/5kop1763SPM.jpg . Thank you, regards, Siegfried Stenzel

[RW Julian]

[/color]Dear Bob, you say that there exist 5kopSPM coins on new planchets as well. Didn't SPM act as an auxiliary mint at the time as regarded copper, overstriking the obsolete Peter III copper coins same as Moscow? As I specialize in the large coppers, I am eager to know all about it. Where do we know from that SPM struck also on new planchets? What intrigues me very much is the edge of the coin. It seems to be overstruck as well. Why did SPM feel the urge to overstrike the reticulated edge of 10kop1762 with another reticulated edge? My only 5kop1763SPM (variant with small mintmark letters) also has an overstruck edge. I will send a picture soon. Thank you, regards, Siegfried Stenzel

 

Actually it is merely an opinion that SPM pieces exist on new planchets; the pieces in my collection for 1763 SPM are all overstrikes. I think that strikes on new planchets will be found in due course but will be rare to very rare.

 

With respect to the second edging operation this was probably connected with preparing the planchet for striking; there were presumably technical reasons for doing so.

 

RWJ

[sigistenz]

Actually it is merely an opinion that SPM pieces exist on new planchets; the pieces in my collection for 1763 SPM are all overstrikes. I think that strikes on new planchets will be found in due course but will be rare to very rare. With respect to the second edging operation this was probably connected with preparing the planchet for striking; there were presumably technical reasons for doing so. RWJ

Dear Bob, thank you. I have now inserted the picture of my 5kop1763SPM including the overstruck edge http://sigistenz.com/bilder/5kop1763SPM.jpg . I have no 5kop1764SPM but on my later SPM dates the edges are not overstruck. When you have the time- would you check your 5kop1763SPM, whether they all have the overstruck edge? And how about 5kop1764SPM - do they have the edge overstruck? By the way - the edges are pretty important. An EM coin altered into the scarcer CM, for example, can be distinguished by the edge, look http://sigistenz.com/bilder/EM-CMedges.jpg . Thank you, regards, Sigi

[gxseries]

sigistenz, I find it unusual that the edge is double edged, unless there was some sort of pattern edge that the mint realized that they must get rid off. Perhaps only in 1763 in SPB, they decided to try out reedging the edges but they figured out that it was completely useless to do so as they have the same edge.

 

I am not too sure but it seems that there are two different types, one that is close netted and the other that is wide netted, which is seen in the 1763 overstriked coin, comparing the top to the left of the edge. I guess they tried to re-edge the coin to save copper being shaved off, as copper at that time is still a valuable commodity.

 

I will have to check my edges of 5 kopeks that I have, which unfortunately most of them are not with me at the moment.

[sigistenz]

sigistenz, I find it unusual that the edge is double edged, unless there was some sort of pattern edge that the mint realized that they must get rid off. Perhaps only in 1763 in SPB, they decided to try out reedging the edges but they figured out that it was completely useless to do so as they have the same edge.

 

I am not too sure but it seems that there are two different types, one that is close netted and the other that is wide netted, which is seen in the 1763 overstriked coin, comparing the top to the left of the edge. I guess they tried to re-edge the coin to save copper being shaved off, as copper at that time is still a valuable commodity.

 

I will have to check my edges of 5 kopeks that I have, which unfortunately most of them are not with me at the moment.

Thank you, gxseries! From your excellent pictures (!) the rim shows as \\\\\\\ (?) Could you let us have another one or 2 pictures of it, please? I do not think that the re-edging was done to recuperate copper. Amounts would have been too minim to justify the labor. Overstruck coins do in general not differ in weight from the others. Thank you, regards, Sigi

[RW Julian]

Thank you, gxseries! From your excellent pictures (!) the rim shows as \\\\\\\ (?) Could you let us have another one or 2 pictures of it, please? I do not think that the re-edging was done to recuperate copper. Amounts would have been too minim to justify the labor. Overstruck coins do in general not differ in weight from the others. Thank you, regards, Sigi

I can add that I published illustrations in the "Olla Podrida" part of RNS Journal 74 (page 47) of a 1763 CM piatak with partial reeding (\\\\\) on its edge. At that time I thought that perhaps this had either been done by hand or was a survivor of a rejected plan for re-edging the coins. It appears now that the latter suggestion may be the more likely.

RWJ

[gxseries]

Sigi, you are the one with the coin! I don't have the coin with me so what I can only tell is from the image that I see.

 

In here is an image that I have played around with:

 

I see three different zones in this edge in my opinion:

 

In the following colors:

Green - Possible edging for the previous type? I am not too sure why the edging style of this one is much wider.

Blue - Regular edging for 5 kopeks minted after 1763 (sorry, I don't have any examples at the moment before 1762 to compare with at the moment)

Red - Possibly edging for 2 kopeks? (notice how the lines are divided unusually into two as well as a parallel line compared to the 2 coin surfaces, i.e. a line that divides the coin edge into two.)

 

I am quite confused at the moment.

[sigistenz]

Sigi, you are the one with the coin! I don't have the coin with me so what I can only tell is from the image that I see. In here is an image that I have played around with:I see three different zones in this edge in my opinion:In the following colors:Green - Possible edging for the previous type? I am not too sure why the edging style of this one is much wider. Blue - Regular edging for 5 kopeks minted after 1763 (sorry, I don't have any examples at the moment before 1762 to compare with at the moment)Red - Possibly edging for 2 kopeks? (notice how the lines are divided unusually into two as well as a parallel line compared to the 2 coin surfaces, i.e. a line that divides the coin edge into two.) I am quite confused at the moment.

Dear gxseries, thank you for the reply. After having checked all my 1763 - 1788 overstrike 5kop, I think that ALL overstrike mints did also overstrike the edge. EM seems to have done this with its familiar narrow netting as already had been used with the 1758-1762 5kop. The other overstrike mints (SPM, MM, CM -I don't however have an CM visibly overstruck, either-) used a wider netting. With my coin (commented by you above) it can only be seen at the right portion of the picture, thus not very well executed. My later dates of the overstrike mints all show strong wide edging with the host coin's edge barely visible underneath. Why did they overstrike the edge? The only reason I can think of is that the overstruck coins should not get too large in diameter(?). Anyone with a better idea? Regards, Sigi

[bobh]

[...snip...] Why did they overstrike the edge? The only reason I can think of is that the overstruck coins should not get too large in diameter(?). Anyone with a better idea? Regards, Sigi

Your idea is the best I have heard so far! I shall take another look at my 1763-SPM ... besten Dank nach Deutschland!

[RW Julian]

Dear Bob, thank you. I have now inserted the picture of my 5kop1763SPM including the overstruck edge http://sigistenz.com/bilder/5kop1763SPM.jpg . I have no 5kop1764SPM but on my later SPM dates the edges are not overstruck. When you have the time- would you check your 5kop1763SPM, whether they all have the overstruck edge? And how about 5kop1764SPM - do they have the edge overstruck? By the way - the edges are pretty important. An EM coin altered into the scarcer CM, for example, can be distinguished by the edge, look http://sigistenz.com/bilder/EM-CMedges.jpg . Thank you, regards, Sigi

I have had a chance to check my 1763 SPM issues, of which I have 4. One has a bad edge and nothing of value can be seen on this one in terms of edging or re-edging.

The next two are interesting in that they both have the wide XXXX edge except for two small areas which appear to be more like the EM fine edges. The fine parts, however, are 180 degrees apart and lead to a different conclusion than might be expected. I do not think that they were re-edged but rather were the same as when originally struck, presumably at Moscow.

At this time the edges were applied in the Castaing Machine, which consisted of two parallel bars; each bar had the edge design in reverse, like a coinage die. The planchet was forced between these bars and the XXXX was applied. It is my opinion that the fine edge marks were created when one bars applied the edging over what had been put on by the other bar. In other words there was an overlap, which appears to be from re-edging but is not. (After the edges were applied they were taken to the coining press.)

The last piece had been mentioned earlier and has slanted reeding on parts of the edge. This piece has been mislaid but when it is found I will check it as well for other signs of re-edging.

RWJ