WCO Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 Obviously, there are too many highly-talented Russian metallurgists out of work. Right, Russia was always reach with talented people. Adding a rider is more difficult than to make a narrow chipher. But seeing a good picture of the coin in question would be still interesting for everyone (I guess). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RARENUM 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? Looks like original 1798 EM 1 kopeck -mintmark removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kisenish Posted September 13, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2006 Hi guys, I scanned the coin. But unfortunately i can´t upload the pictures It says: "The total filespace required to upload all the attached files is greater than your per post or global limit. Please reduce the number of attachments or the size of the attachments", but my files are just 101 kb each Can somebody help me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted September 13, 2006 Report Share Posted September 13, 2006 Kisenish, you can sign up an account at http://www.imageshack.us which gives you unlimited space upload except the image restriction is less than 1.5mb (which I don't think your file is THAT big) Alternatively if you still have issues, please do pm me and I'll give you my email address Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kisenish Posted September 13, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2006 Voila! Thanks, gxseries! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobh Posted September 13, 2006 Report Share Posted September 13, 2006 Certainly looks realistic to me. Could you also post an image of the edge, pleaase? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kisenish Posted September 13, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2006 Certainly looks realistic to me. Could you also post an image of the edge, pleaase? Hi Bob, I´ll post it tomorrow, since I´m at work and coin is at home now Part of the edge you can see on the first picture (with cipher) on the right side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccg Posted September 13, 2006 Report Share Posted September 13, 2006 Perhaps I am imagining things but that's what I see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE MOULDING Posted September 13, 2006 Report Share Posted September 13, 2006 Voila! Thanks kisenish for posting these so quickly. From what I can tell so far it looks fine to me, at least in terms of being a narrow Cipher. As to die type and whether the line has been removed (and it may have been), I need to do some more work tonight. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCO Posted September 13, 2006 Report Share Posted September 13, 2006 Kisenish, thank you for the images! Looks realistic, right. All the fakes made by altering a real authentic coin look realistic too. Should be letter "M" of mintmark this far to the right? May be this coin is real after all, do not know, just line separator removed? Interesting to compare to the other known coins of this type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE MOULDING Posted September 13, 2006 Report Share Posted September 13, 2006 Kisenish, thank you for the images! Looks realistic, right. All the fakes made by altering a real authentic coin look realistic too. Should be letter "M" of mintmark this far to the right? May be this coin is real after all, do not know, just line separator removed? Interesting to compare to the other known coins of this type. Mintmark is fine. Compare to the Brekke Plate Coin: Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKB Posted September 13, 2006 Report Share Posted September 13, 2006 WCO: 1. The coin is fine. The mintmark is fine. I am a proud owner of 2 major variations of this coin. When compared to my coins, it checks out OK. It also checks out ok in comparison to printed image. 2. I do not see any reason for removing the line. 1798 no m/m exists. It is extremely rare. The coin at issue does not exist without a line. It could be a new die variation. Steve told said that he knows 4 die variations already. Of these 4 oly 1 is reported. It could have possibly been a soft strike, which caused the line absence. There are many things that could have caused this, in addition to this being an altered or a fake coin. 3. I do not believe that it is appropriate to trash someone else's coin before you have evidence. Now, how can you have such evidence in this case without handling the coin and making a first hand determination that it is fake/altered/etc. The images look fine to me. Corrosion is natural to this coin. I have no record of any such coin in mint state condition selling at auction. The fact that the coin is not certified by NGC does not automatically make it a fake, you know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCO Posted September 13, 2006 Report Share Posted September 13, 2006 WCO: 1. The coin is fine. The mintmark is fine. I am a proud owner of 2 major variations of this coin. When compared to my coins, it checks out OK. It also checks out ok in comparison to printed image. 2. I do not see any reason for removing the line. 1798 no m/m exists. It is extremely rare. The coin at issue does not exist without a line. It could be a new die variation. Steve told said that he knows 4 die variations already. Of these 4 oly 1 is reported. It could have possibly been a soft strike, which caused the line absence. There are many things that could have caused this, in addition to this being an altered or a fake coin. 3. I do not believe that it is appropriate to trash someone else's coin before you have evidence. Now, how can you have such evidence in this case without handling the coin and making a first hand determination that it is fake/altered/etc. The images look fine to me. Corrosion is natural to this coin. I have no record of any such coin in mint state condition selling at auction. The fact that the coin is not certified by NGC does not automatically make it a fake, you know... 2:BKB Even with better images I do not know for sure if the narrow cipher coin is authentic or not, altered or not, new die variety or not. On your place, I would not be giving out your left hand that it is authentic and never altered for sure and with 100% accuracy. I saw too many examples to otherwise. On my side I did not put a 100% accurate verdict, on the contrary, I many times said that I may be mistaken and would be more than glad if this turns out to be authentic. I do not know why you decided that I tried "to trash someone else's coin" since I never did such a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE MOULDING Posted September 14, 2006 Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 I've checked the obverse (monogram) against the 17 coins and 4 die types I know. It's different. The reverse matches known reverses except we are missing some features, notably the line and what should look like a semi-colon after the 2. Given the amount of wear on the center of the reverse (note the top of the 1 is missing and the central letters are very weak) I don't think we can yet say for sure that this coin really was missing these features when struck. I think it very possible they're just worn or corroded away. However, I can't see any traces with initial image enhancement techniques. I do believe based on what I can see that the coin is genuine. I think it is a new obverse die type. Of the coins I know of, this would now give Obv Die Type I - 7 coins Obv Die Type II - 8 coins Obv Die Type III - 1 coin Obv Die Type IV - 1 coin Obv Die Type V - 1 coin (this one) So, congratulations kisenish...great find The obvious question is why are there so many die varieties? Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kisenish Posted September 14, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 Dear community, Thanks a lot for the great discussion! It is a really amazing forum. In my collection I have several undescribed varieties and overdates of other coins (for example, 5 kopeks 1791/90/89 EM in good XF), when I have time I will post them kisenish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grivna1726 Posted September 14, 2006 Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 The obvious question is why are there so many die varieties? Maybe because the dies were hand-made and the simple design of nothing more than the monogram b/w denomination/date/mintmark led to more obvious variations? Paul's silver certainly shows a lot of variation ranging from pattern yefimki to the Albertus rouble and heavy rouble and its diminutives of 1797, followed by the lighter weight issues of 1798 and later years. A charitible view might see this as evidence of much innovation and experimentation. A less charitible view might see it as evidence of an arbitrary and erratic approach to the coinage. Certainly there were some interesting things happening with the coinage under Paul, even if the reasons for the changes are not always clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted September 14, 2006 Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 Kisenish, you most certainly to have something unusual there. However, I personally am skeptical over what you have there. What I did was to expose the color contrast: What I am personally worried is the unusual wearing in particular on the left side of where the line is supposed to be: Given in theory of where the line is supposed to be, it should be somewhere starting from the bottom of "o" to the letter "k". Now, WHY is the contrast in that particular unusually lighter? As well as, if you are to notice the lower letters of "O||EKI/I", it seems to me that there is some sort of unusual wear to them. The digit of "1797", in particular the first digit "1" also shows some unusual signs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCO Posted September 14, 2006 Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 I've checked the obverse (monogram) against the 17 coins and 4 die types I know. It's different. The reverse matches known reverses except we are missing some features, notably the line and what should look like a semi-colon after the 2... Well, Obverse is different. Reverse is different too from everything we know. Still conclusion that it is authentic and new variety. I myself do not know what it is. In any case I would not rush and put this into catalogs. Congratulations kisenish! Great subject for discussion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kisenish Posted September 14, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 Hi gxseries, Thanks for your comment! It may be possible that the line just corroded away, difficult to say now Maybe, it was deleted by purpose, however, what for?? Or it´s just a weak struck. This coin in the hand looks much more convincing than on the scans, so I believe it´s genuine. Even if the line was there before, it is a variant with narrow cipher, the type I´ve been searching for a long time (actually, I saw several coins, but the prices were ridiculous , as those coins are rare) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.