Some error coins (Catherine II, pyataka)

[bobh]

I have some questions about these:

 

1. 1765-EM, overstruck or double-struck edge

2. 1781-EM, double-struck scroll

3. 1779-EM, possible repunched date

 

Are these "merely" error coins, or are they varieties? For example, does anyone see signs of overstriking on the coin with the doubled edge? Any clue about the repunched date?

 

Thanks for looking!

[gxseries]

Nice coins Bobh. I wished I had more examples to sample but these are getting quite unaffordable these days on the net.

 

Here are some of my observations that I have noticed. Remember that in the early days of Russian coinage technology, most planchets are not circular, especially when the size of them get larger. In fact even take a look at Ekaterina II rubles - are they quite circular? Well probably it is, but it wasn't until 1802 that the technology was significantly improved.

 

There are many interesting characters of the 5 kopeks, in which might make them quite unique. While many do have issues, i.e. overstrike, double strike, misaligned, overdate etc are actually quite "common".

 

Since the planchet itself is HUGE, technical problem obviously arise Personally if there is a VAM version of these 5 kopeks - it might be an enormously large project to become

[RW Julian]

I have some questions about these:

 

1. 1765-EM, overstruck or double-struck edge

2. 1781-EM, double-struck scroll

3. 1779-EM, possible repunched date

 

Are these "merely" error coins, or are they varieties? For example, does anyone see signs of overstriking on the coin with the doubled edge? Any clue about the repunched date?

Thanks for looking!

 

With respect to the "double-struck edge" it should be noted that the terminology is almost correct, but not quite. Edges were not struck but rather the planchet was placed between two parallel bars (the Castaing machine) which were moved and the pattern forced into the edge. It was usual practice for the edging to overlap, giving the appearance of being edged twice. My guess is that this coin will show this doubling on the edge 180 degress apart.

 

The double struck scroll would appear to be on a double-struck coin, which is common in this series.

 

The repunched date is odd looking but the analysis is no doubt correct. It was just a bad job of putting the figure 7 in the first time and correcting the blunder made it worse.

 

RWJ

[bobh]

Thanks for sharing your knowledge with us time and again, RW!

 

With respect to the "double-struck edge" it should be noted that the terminology is almost correct, but not quite. Edges were not struck but rather the planchet was placed between two parallel bars (the Castaing machine) which were moved and the pattern forced into the edge. It was usual practice for the edging to overlap, giving the appearance of being edged twice. My guess is that this coin will show this doubling on the edge 180 degress apart.

If I understand correctly, the planchet would rotate while being drawn through the edging machine, and the two parallel bars would move in opposite directions -- if nothing kept the planchet from rotating more than 180 degrees, then the impression would double.

 

Are there any illustrations of the Castaing machine in any reference works, or perhaps on the web? For a long time now, I have been keenly interested in the technology used to "strike" the edges of Russian coins (and presumably other nationalities used this technology as well?)

 

The double struck scroll would appear to be on a double-struck coin, which is common in this series.

The thing which puzzles me about this is the fact that the reverse of this coin is so clean, given the force necessary to make the extra scroll outline on the obverse. Is it possible that only one of the dies was in place during the first blow, and therefore no impression made on the reverse? That might explain it.

 

The repunched date is odd looking but the analysis is no doubt correct. It was just a bad job of putting the figure 7 in the first time and correcting the blunder made it worse.

I have also wondered whether the nine (in 1779) was punched in where the seven should have been, then corrected?

 

Again, thanks very much for your help!

[WCO]

I have some questions about these:

 

1. 1765-EM, overstruck or double-struck edge

2. 1781-EM, double-struck scroll

3. 1779-EM, possible repunched date

 

Are these "merely" error coins, or are they varieties? For example, does anyone see signs of overstriking on the coin with the doubled edge? Any clue about the repunched date?

 

Thanks for looking!

 

 

Bobh, good coins. However, can you call them errors or they are just varieties? Well, coins that came out of mint and look like they are not minted as intended, they are errors.

 

Examples of errors:

 

Struck off center, struck on defective or wrong planchets, double struck, clipped plnchets, laminated or broken planchets, indents, brockage, struck through abnormal objects, etc.

 

Examples of varieties.

 

Mint overstriking programs (undercoin may be partially visible), overdates, overmintmasters, die re-engravings or polishing.

 

Coin with overlapped edging design is an error (common, no premium for this), coin with partial doubling is error too (again no premium). Coin with repunched date is a variety therefore.

 

Best,

WCO

[bobh]

Coin with overlapped edging design is an error (common, no premium for this), coin with partial doubling is error too (again no premium). Coin with repunched date is a variety therefore.

Thank you, WCO!

[RW Julian]

If I understand correctly, the planchet would rotate while being drawn through the edging machine, and the two parallel bars would move in opposite directions - if nothing kept the planchet from rotating more than 180 degrees, then the impression would double.

Are there any illustrations of the Castaing machine in any reference works, or perhaps on the web? For a long time now, I have been keenly interested in the technology used to "strike" the edges of Russian coins (and presumably other nationalities used this technology as well?)

The thing which puzzles me about this is the fact that the reverse of this coin is so clean, given the force necessary to make the extra scroll outline on the obverse. Is it possible that only one of the dies was in place during the first blow, and therefore no impression made on the reverse? That might explain it.

I have also wondered whether the nine (in 1779) was punched in where the seven should have been, then corrected?

Again, thanks very much for your help!

You are correct about how the Castaing machine worked. There are a couple of illustrations of this machine, along with explanations, in the book by Denis R. Cooper: The Art and Craft of Coinmaking. Spink 1988. This book is well worth having as it covers the minting process very carefully. I do not know of any web illustrations.

 

For the piece with the extra scroll, one explanation is that the eagle die had worked loose. The other explanation, which I prefer, is that the planchet was fed in off-center and the reverse doubling is not seen.

 

You may well be right on the 1779 date.

 

RWJ

[gxseries]

WCO, this might be an offtopic question but what is the heaviest and lightest 5 kopek that you have come across?

[bobh]

3. 1779-EM, possible repunched date

After examining the date some more, I think what we see there underneath the second "7" was also a 7, but mirrored and rotated 90 degrees. If the individual digits were hammered into the die from separate pieces, this would make sense. It is also a mistake that is presumably fairly easy to make since a mirrored and rotated 7 looks very much like a normal seven, except that in this case the rounded end at the bottom would end up at the upper left.

 

OTOH, how would it be possible to mirror the digit? Presumably they were welded onto some kind of nail or block in order to extract them from the die after being punched in. The only way to do this would be if the digit were attached backwards to begin with...

 

At any rate, if this is a variety as WCO has suggested, there should be some more coins around with the same repunching (it would be nice to see one in better condition than mine, which has some terrible planchet flaws).

[WCO]

After examining the date some more, I think what we see there underneath the second "7" was also a 7, but mirrored and rotated 90 degrees. If the individual digits were hammered into the die from separate pieces, this would make sense. It is also a mistake that is presumably fairly easy to make since a mirrored and rotated 7 looks very much like a normal seven, except that in this case the rounded end at the bottom would end up at the upper left.

 

OTOH, how would it be possible to mirror the digit? Presumably they were welded onto some kind of nail or block in order to extract them from the die after being punched in. The only way to do this would be if the digit were attached backwards to begin with...

 

At any rate, if this is a variety as WCO has suggested, there should be some more coins around with the same repunching (it would be nice to see one in better condition than mine, which has some terrible planchet flaws).

 

 

Since this is die variety, then there should be other coins of this variety in existence. Considering large mintage figures of 5 Kop. pieces there were many dies for each year, so it may be not that easy to find another piece made from the same dies.

 

About weight of 5 Kop. Not my preferred coin series, so I rarely buy this kind. I heard of coins with weight of over 100 gram and below 35 gram, but not that I had so extreme coins in my posession.

 

WCO

[sigistenz]

Hi bobh, I am happy to see that I am not alone specializing in this series. Thank you for showing the interesting pieces. I am planning to show some intriguing ones of mine as soon as I find the time. Best Sigi