Wings down 1833 overstruck on 1830

[Timofei]

Hi all!

 

Here is an interesting coin, which I belive to be a novodel no matter what:

http://www.thauctions.com/ItemDetail.asp?M...atID2=0&p=9

2 kopek 1831, Ekaterinburg Mint, Brekke 145 (Very Rare), Bitkin 505 (R3), prooflike, ex. O. P. Eklund Collection - extremely rare date,1831 overstruck on 1830

 

Here is another coin of the series which I have (see my picture). It is 1833 with the last 3 reengraved over 0. The coin on my picture is (to my mind) a novodel.

 

Now the question is :

Have anybody of you ever come across a wings down novodel with the date digits reengraved over 1830? Do you think there may be a small chance that both coins pictured in this post are original business strikes? Any idea WHY did they need to reengrave a date on NOVODEL???

 

Any theories will be welcome!

[gxseries]

Wow Timofei, thanks for sharing the interesting link and nice 5k you got there!

 

That's a very interesting coin you got there and I'm puzzled as well. As the first year of the production of such eagle down copper coins is in 1830 - they are supposely scarce. I don't see what good it is to strike it in 1833, unless a collector specifically requested such coin for let's say the birth of himself years later, probably after 1850s. I really would like to know what St. Petersburg's policy was at that time with regards to collectors - did St. Petersburg take any kind of request as long as they get handsomely paid in black money? Or was it an open market?

[Timofei]

Wow Timofei, thanks for sharing the interesting link and nice 5k you got there!

 

That's a very interesting coin you got there and I'm puzzled as well. As the first year of the production of such eagle down copper coins is in 1830 - they are supposely scarce. I don't see what good it is to strike it in 1833, unless a collector specifically requested such coin for let's say the birth of himself years later, probably after 1850s. I really would like to know what St. Petersburg's policy was at that time with regards to collectors - did St. Petersburg take any kind of request as long as they get handsomely paid in black money? Or was it an open market?

 

You see, qx, if it was a regular nice and clean novodel I would not pay much attention to it - they used to make these series up to 1870-s, when for the last time in Ekaterinburg the full yearly sets were prepared for Paris exhibition. But why and when they reengraved 30 to 33 - that is a mystery to me, and now I see that there is another coin with 1830 reengraved to a later date.

[gxseries]

Is there any kind of special event that occured in Russia during 1833? Sorry, I don't know too much about Russian history except major ones If it's 1834 - I would have given some kind of guess, but 1833... I just don't know why.

[WCO]

Hi all!

 

Here is an interesting coin, which I belive to be a novodel no matter what:

http://www.thauctions.com/ItemDetail.asp?M...atID2=0&p=9

2 kopek 1831, Ekaterinburg Mint, Brekke 145 (Very Rare), Bitkin 505 (R3), prooflike, ex. O. P. Eklund Collection - extremely rare date,1831 overstruck on 1830

 

Here is another coin of the series which I have (see my picture). It is 1833 with the last 3 reengraved over 0. The coin on my picture is (to my mind) a novodel.

 

Now the question is :

Have anybody of you ever come across a wings down novodel with the date digits reengraved over 1830? Do you think there may be a small chance that both coins pictured in this post are original business strikes? Any idea WHY did they need to reengrave a date on NOVODEL???

 

Any theories will be welcome!

 

 

Good day everyone.

 

Both coins are definite Novodels. While there may be many reasons to make 1831/0 Novodel 2 Kopecks I am not sure that shown 5 Kopecks piece is 1833/0. I defenetely see something on that 5 Kopecks, but what I see does not look as underlying "zero" to me. 2 Kopecks Novodel is not that rare.

 

WCO

[BKB]

I think this is a Novodel. I personally have no doubt. A couple of real 1831 em-fx that I know of do not show an overdate. (Tolstoy, Duplicates) Also, the absolute rarity of the coin does not allow for multiple dies.

 

What do you think of the 1830 em-fx 10 kopek from the same auction? I do not like the "3" in the date. Does not really match the specimens I know.

[Timofei]

What do you think of the 1830 em-fx 10 kopek from the same auction? I do not like the "3" in the date. Does not really match the specimens I know.

 

A coin in this condition should always bring the question of fake\original especially when it is a rare coin. I do not like the date at all. It is a known fact that sometimes the letters or digits are soldered to the coin; in this shape it is impossible to judge anything definite.

[Timofei]

What do you think of the 1830 em-fx 10 kopek from the same auction? I do not like the "3" in the date. Does not really match the specimens I know.

 

A coin in this condition should always bring the question of fake\original especially when it is a rare coin. I do not like the date at all. It is a known fact that sometimes the letters or digits are soldered to the coin; in this shape it is impossible to judge anything definite.

[RW Julian]

Hi all!

Here is an interesting coin, which I belive to be a novodel no matter what:

2 kopek 1831, Ekaterinburg Mint, Brekke 145 (Very Rare), Bitkin 505 (R3), prooflike, ex. O. P. Eklund Collection - extremely rare date,1831 overstruck on 1830

Here is another coin of the series which I have (see my picture). It is 1833 with the last 3 reengraved over 0. The coin on my picture is (to my mind) a novodel.

Now the question is :

Have anybody of you ever come across a wings down novodel with the date digits reengraved over 1830? Do you think there may be a small chance that both coins pictured in this post are original business strikes? Any idea WHY did they need to reengrave a date on NOVODEL???

Any theories will be welcome!

It was common practice to redate dies by punching in a new figure. In this case the figure 0 was changed to a figure 1, creating the overdate 1831/0. Although it is possible that this is a novodel it has to be considered that the piece is in fact a specimen strike from 1831. Perhaps there was a request from a local collector with influence and dies for this denomination had not yet been prepared for 1831; the creation of an overdate would then be a normal thing to do.

 

It might also have been the case that there was a small trial coinage of this denomination in 1831 and the only obverse die then on hand (dated 1830) was hurriedly redated for the test.

 

As a last thought, it is possible that regular coinage on the new standard was considered for late 1830 and dies prepared but for whatever reason did not occur. This would have left dies of 1830 on hand for redating and use in 1831.

 

RWJ

[Timofei]

It was common practice to redate dies by punching in a new figure. In this case the figure 0 was changed to a figure 1, creating the overdate 1831/0. Although it is possible that this is a novodel it has to be considered that the piece is in fact a specimen strike from 1831. Perhaps there was a request from a local collector with influence and dies for this denomination had not yet been prepared for 1831; the creation of an overdate would then be a normal thing to do.

 

It might also have been the case that there was a small trial coinage of this denomination in 1831 and the only obverse die then on hand (dated 1830) was hurriedly redated for the test.

 

As a last thought, it is possible that regular coinage on the new standard was considered for late 1830 and dies prepared but for whatever reason did not occur. This would have left dies of 1830 on hand for redating and use in 1831.

 

RWJ

 

This may be a good explanation for 1830\1 but what is the reason for reengraving 1830 to 1833 on a novodel coin?

[WCO]

It was common practice to redate dies by punching in a new figure. In this case the figure 0 was changed to a figure 1, creating the overdate 1831/0. Although it is possible that this is a novodel it has to be considered that the piece is in fact a specimen strike from 1831. Perhaps there was a request from a local collector with influence and dies for this denomination had not yet been prepared for 1831; the creation of an overdate would then be a normal thing to do.

 

It might also have been the case that there was a small trial coinage of this denomination in 1831 and the only obverse die then on hand (dated 1830) was hurriedly redated for the test.

 

As a last thought, it is possible that regular coinage on the new standard was considered for late 1830 and dies prepared but for whatever reason did not occur. This would have left dies of 1830 on hand for redating and use in 1831.

 

RWJ

 

Both things (Specimen strike of 1831 and trial coinage of 1831) are very unlikely. 1831/0 coin is a definite Novodel and patterns at that time were bronzed Proofs only. Since both 1830 and 1831 coins had letters "EM-FX" it was reasonable to "overdate" 1830 coin to a new date 1831 to satisfy demand from collectors for rare 1831 coin years later, when it was already known that 1831 coin is extremely rare.

 

WCO

[RW Julian]

This may be a good explanation for 1830\1 but what is the reason for reengraving 1830 to 1833 on a novodel coin?

I have looked at the photograph carefully and am not convinced that it is 1833/0. My first guess is that the final figure 3 is over a mispunched (error figure) numeral, perhaps a 3 or 2. Sometimes the engraver picked up the wrong punch or punched the numeral too far from the rest of the date.

 

It was normal practice at Ekaterinburg to prepare dies in advance, missing the last numeral. For example, an obverse die might be prepared in October 1832 but with uncertainty as to whether it would be used in 1832 or 1833. The last digit was then added when it was certain when the die would be used. This was common practice through 1867 for copper.

 

This practice, of adding the last digit well after the rest of the die had been completed, often resulted in mismatched numerals or numerals not in line with the rest of the date.

 

RWJ

[Loyal Citizen]

This practice, of adding the last digit well after the rest of the die had been completed, often resulted in mismatched numerals or numerals not in line with the rest of the date.

 

RWJ

 

I just wanted to add that this practice was extremely popular in Russian coinage of 1830s and 1840s.

[BKB]

If you compare the coin at issue to GM specimen -- it is close, but not identical. Ribbons differ a little. But, do not forget that some denominations of 1830 spb series can only be distinguished as original or Novodel by those ribbons. (5 kop piece for example) Thus, I still believe it is a novodel. The coin is so rare if it is original that I do not believe in two sets of dies.

 

Even if Novodel -- who can remember the last time it appeared? I certainly cannot. Thus, even if Novodel, it is also very rare. I would be very interested in purchasing such Novodel for a reasonable price.

[Loyal Citizen]

I would be very interested in purchasing such Novodel for a reasonable price.

 

 

Which is about $6,000 ??? :-)

[WCO]

Which is about $6,000 ??? :-)

 

 

I guess much less than that.

 

WCO

[Timofei]

Here are the pictures of the last digit on 1833 5 kopeck novodel, taken with 30x and 15x magnification. I think that only '0' could leave such a mark. Any ideas?

[Timofei]

Here are the pictures of the last digit on 1833 5 kopeck novodel, taken with 30x and 15x magnification. I think that only '0' could leave such a mark. Any ideas?

 

 

Picture #2

[IgorS]

My only question is this - if it is in fact a 0, is not it too far to the right?

[Timofei]

My only question is this - if it is in fact a 0, is not it too far to the right?

 

 

As Mr.Julian pointed out - last digit was punched later after die preparation. Below is the example of 3 different coins of 31 and 33 - note that the last digit is always stands separately and could be above, below closer etc. Same applies to the dot after the date. So I would not be surprised if 0 is far away.

[gxseries]

I think it's unrealistic to debate upon theories without a proper base. What is more important is to focus on what is really under the three before making up conjectures.

 

I believe it's almost undeniable that there is a curve on the right of the figure 3. And on the left, there seems to be another curve right under the tip of the top side of the number three. What other numbers can it be? 0 or 2 I say.

[Loyal Citizen]

What other numbers can it be? 0 or 2 I say.

 

 

IT'S TIME TO VOTE , EVERYONE!

[WCO]

Looked some more on better pictures, still not sure though what digit was underlying. Not convinced it is a "zero".

 

 

WCO

[sigistenz]

Hi friends, I refer to the 2kop1831/0. The complete date seems to have been revised, certainly the 3 and the 8. And the X of the mintmaster initials is unlike any other X. Does anyone have an idea about that? http://www.thauctions.com/ItemDetail.asp?M...atID2=0&p=9

Thanks, regards, Sigi

[gxseries]

Sigi, link not found