kisenish Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 Hi everybody, I would like to share with you the coin I bought recently on eBay : http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewIt...em=230016494810 This is a very rare coin - 2 kopeks 1797 AM with narrow cipher. Uzdenikov lists it as very rare ('-), Bitkin as R2, and so on. Very interesting is that the line below the word "kopeks" is missing. I looked at this coin closely, it seems that the line has never been there, and not just became invisible due to surface corrosion. I looked in all the books (I have almost everything, including "Corpus of Russian coins"), but this variety is not described anywhere. The coin is genuine, I have no doubts on this point. The edge is intact, cord-like, as it should be. Greetings, kisenish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banivechi Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 Great find! Maybe it is an unknown die? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobh Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 Excellent find, kisenish! Is it possible, being that the listed variety is so rare, that both types (i.e. with and without the separator over the date) were actually trial or pattern coins? This may have been the method of easily distinguishing the different patterns from another. Your coin was maybe an earlier version, as it would have been very easy to punch the line into the die afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grivna1726 Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 Very interesting is that the line below the word "kopeks" is missing. I looked at this coin closely, it seems that the line has never been there, and not just became invisible due to surface corrosion. Congratulations on a most interesting purchase! I have never seen or heard of this "lineless" variety before. It must be an extremely rare coin to have escaped attention for all these years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE MOULDING Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 Excellent find, kisenish! Is it possible, being that the listed variety is so rare, that both types (i.e. with and without the separator over the date) were actually trial or pattern coins? This may have been the method of easily distinguishing the different patterns from another. Your coin was maybe an earlier version, as it would have been very easy to punch the line into the die afterwards. I know of 17 other narrow ciphers from my image database (this would be number 18) and know of 4 distinct die varieties. If this is indeed without a line (but I cant tell for sure without closer inspection) it would be die variety #5. Anyway, nice find and thanks for showing it. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobh Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 I know of 17 other narrow ciphers from my image database (this would be number 18) and know of 4 distinct die varieties. If this is indeed without a line (but I cant tell for sure without closer inspection) it would be die variety #5. Anyway, nice find and thanks for showing it. What kind of database do you use to organize all of your images? I am curious because I have started to create a database of my own -- not just of images, but also with other information, transaction data, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE MOULDING Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 What kind of database do you use to organize all of your images? I am curious because I have started to create a database of my own -- not just of images, but also with other information, transaction data, etc. Hi Bob, if you drop me an email I'll send a summary document (pdf) I recently presented at a numismatic society meeting in New York about this ongoing project. (please use smoulding(at)earthlink.net) Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE MOULDING Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 Kisenish...can you post better images? The eBay ones are not too good. Thanks in advance. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCO Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 Kisenish...can you post better images? The eBay ones are not too good.Thanks in advance. Steve Yes, please post better images. Also what makes to believe that it is an authentic piece? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 Good question. Supposely if the line is there, would there have been any similar varities to it Steve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kisenish Posted September 12, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 Hi guys, Thanks a lot for your comments! I will post better images hopefully tomorrow (I just moved to Cologne, everything, including my scanner, is still packed and no Internet at home Pictures from eBay are really bad . I even asked the person who sold it whether the coin was genuine, as pictures were not sharp. After getting the coin, I inspected it thoroughly, there is no doubt - it is a genuine coin with surface corrosion and porosity on the revers and strong oxidation on the avers. This is exactly what happens to the coin if it has been for example on a creek ground for a long time - exposed to water mostly with one side, therefore, the revers is worse preserved than the avers. I'll put better pictures. Edge is completely ok. Greetings, kisenish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCO Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 ...coin with surface corrosion and porosity on the revers and strong oxidation on the avers... That's what was expected. Not even a doubt... I'll post another coin from Paul era to explain something as soon as I make images of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kisenish Posted September 12, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 That's what was expected. Not even a doubt... I'll post another coin from Paul era to explain something as soon as I make images of it. Hi WCO, Do you think it's a fake? Actually, I have several other coins with the same type of damage, they are definitely genuine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE MOULDING Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 Good question. Supposely if the line is there, would there have been any similar varities to it Steve? Excellent question. I'll be able to make a better determination of die type with better images. Overall, the coin looks OK from what I can see so far but will await better pictures from kisenish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCO Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 Just made this picture. May be someone can explain what it is? Obverse is OK, edge is OK as supposed to be, just "interesting" reverse. Note porosity and corrosion the same as on the other rare coin. Looks awfully similar, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grivna1726 Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 Just made this picture. May be someone can explain what it is? http://i01.expertcollector.com/uploads/0003001054_1.jpg My guess is that it is a 1798 kopek with the mintmark removed. But I don't see any tooling marks where the mintmark should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE MOULDING Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 Just made this picture. May be someone can explain what it is? http://i01.expertcollector.com/uploads/0003001054_1.jpg Obverse is OK, edge is OK as supposed to be, just "interesting" reverse. Note porosity and corrosion the same as on the other rare coin. Looks awfully similar, isn't it? WCO...I'd say EM with the mintmark removed. Again very hard to say without seeing it. If you have a hi-res version of this scan please send to Steve.Moulding(at)gmail.com Thanks Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kisenish Posted September 12, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 Just made this picture. May be someone can explain what it is? http://i01.expertcollector.com/uploads/0003001054_1.jpg Obverse is OK, edge is OK as supposed to be, just "interesting" reverse. Yes, this 1 kopek coin from 1798 is a bit strange - surface is corroded, but letters are sharp Real corrosion would destroy the coin more evenly, like the coin I posted. The next question is - where is the mintmark? Well, there are some novodels without it, but it does not look like a novodel. Interestingly, porosity is less on the place where a mintmark should be, possibly indicating a deliberate mechanical removal of the mintmark. Some people do it trying to establish "new", undescribed pieces and then to confuse the collectors. I´ll look on my coin again. Even if the line was removed, the narrow cipher is still real Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kisenish Posted September 12, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 WCO...I'd say EM with the mintmark removed. Again very hard to say without seeing it. If you have a hi-res version of this scan please send to Steve.Moulding(at)gmail.com Thanks Steve Hi Steve, I agree, it should have been the EM mintmark. Alexey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 What seems to be interesting is a few parallel lines that are right under the year which I am assuming it is just polished off the coin. It might be cleaned and covered up the doings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCO Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 There was no tooling detected even under 40-x microscope. And still it's an altered coin. The pictures are the best I can do with my old camera. Modern faking "technologies" allow to make wonders with copper coins, dissolve surfaces, get coins toned again and look old and corroded, make line separators to disappear... narrow ciphers, AM mintmarks on place of EM all sorts of things. The only "problem" for the fake makers is that the surfaces of such coins look porous. I think that kisenish purchased this kind of "work" (would be more than glad if I am mistaken). Of course the pictures of that coin were off focus and difficult to determine, so there is a chance I am mistaken. But something tells me that seller posted bad pictures for a reason, the price was $12 (and not hundreds as anyone would expect from coin this rare) for a reason too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobh Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 I found a little crack around the "O". Interestingly enough, the crack seems to go beneath the letter instead of through it. There is also discoloration behind ALL of the letters in "KOPEIKA" which looks to me like the letters might have been welded onto the coin one-by-one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCO Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 I found a little crack around the "O". Interestingly enough, the crack seems to go beneath the letter instead of through it. There is also discoloration behind ALL of the letters in "KOPEIKA" which looks to me like the letters might have been welded onto the coin one-by-one. I looked at my coin now. I see there is a flan defect near letter "O" it goes through the letter too, just not visible on the pictures. Discoloration area is remaining red luster as often found in protected areas. The coin is definetely made from genuine piece, edge is too good. There are many of this kind (altered) on the market now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCO Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 Another sample of the "masterwork". Added undercoin (rider). This was for sale at Russian web site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobh Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 I looked at my coin now. I see there is a flan defect near letter "O" it goes through the letter too, just not visible on the pictures. Discoloration area is remaining red luster as often found in protected areas. The coin is definetely made from genuine piece, edge is too good. There are many of this kind (altered) on the market now.Obviously, there are too many highly-talented Russian metallurgists out of work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.