another not so great seller on Ebay

[WCO]

There are 1 rub 1779, 1/2 rub 1779 and 2 rub 1756 listed. The pictures are messed up, but IMHO all of them are fakes.

 

LC

 

LC,

 

You did not even care to look at coins, othervise you will see that there is no poltina but 2 different Rubles. And therefore I think you are too fast to give out verdicts, you at least have to look at coins first. FYI: Poltinas were never minted with date 1779, only Rubles.

 

WCO

[Loyal Citizen]

LC,

 

You did not even care to look at coins, othervise you will see that there is no poltina but 2 different Rubles. And therefore I think you are too fast to give out verdicts, you at least have to look at coins first.

 

WCO

 

 

WCO,

 

I did - that's why I mentioned that those three coins are listed but the photos are messed up.

Anyway, I wanted to give you guys a hint and share my painful experience (3 year old one).

I strongly believe that the seller of these three coins was also a victim of the fraud and now is trying to get rid of them ( I do not blame him , though. It is his own business).

 

LC

[WCO]

WCO,

 

I did - that's why I mentioned that those three coins are listed but the photos are messed up.

Anyway, I wanted to give you guys a hint and share my painful experience (3 year old one).

I strongly believe that the seller of these three coins was also a victim of the fraud and now is trying to get rid of them ( I do not blame him , though. It is his own business).

 

LC

 

 

The pictures are OK, just instead of Poltina in item's title should be Ruble so mix up is in title not in pictures. Thank you, LC, I understand that you are trying to warn everyone so we all can avoid this painful experience. I appretiate that. However, I do think that at least one coin there may be authentic, can't say for sure since there are no pictures of edges, but all the rest for that single coin looks quite right for me.

 

WCO

[Loyal Citizen]

The pictures are OK, just instead of Poltina in item's title should be Ruble so mix up is in title not in pictures. Thank you, LC, I understand that you are trying to warn everyone so we all can avoid this painful experience. I appretiate that. However, I do think that at least one coin there may be authentic, can't say for sure since there are no pictures of edges, but all the rest for that single coin looks quite right for me.

 

WCO

 

 

WCO,

 

I sent you a private email with more details. Did not want to share with public for known reasons.

 

LC

[WCO]

WCO,

 

I sent you a private email with more details. Did not want to share with public for known reasons.

 

LC

 

LC, Thank you. This answers about the two coins but does not answer about the third one. I still think that one coin may be OK (at least there is a chance that it is authentic) while two coins are non authentic (fakes).

 

WCO

[GHV]

LC, Thank you. This answers about the two coins but does not answer about the third one. I still think that one coin may be OK (at least there is a chance that it is authentic) while two coins are non authentic (fakes).

 

WCO

 

I see NO reason to think that all 3 coins or one or two are fakes.

Even if they fake, I see no reason to be sure about it.

 

I'm on the WCO's side about those actions.

and if LC sure about "fakes".... he held those fakes in his hands? may be yes? .....

 

GHV

[Loyal Citizen]

I see NO reason to think that all 3 coins or one or two are fakes.

Even if they fake, I see no reason to be sure about it.

 

I'm on the WCO's side about those actions.

and if LC sure about "fakes".... he held those fakes in his hands? may be yes? .....

 

GHV

 

Guys,

I believe I gave all the details I had. Nothing really to add except for the fact that I had a "chance" to hold "a twin sister" of 2 rouble coin listed in my hands.

Best regards, LC

[Loyal Citizen]

I see NO reason to think that all 3 coins or one or two are fakes.

Even if they fake, I see no reason to be sure about it.

 

I'm on the WCO's side about those actions.

and if LC sure about "fakes".... he held those fakes in his hands? may be yes? .....

 

GHV

 

There are two ways to make sure:

 

1. To wait for the seller's honest response (do not hold your breath, though)

2. To buy them on EBay

[Timofei]

There are two ways to make sure:

 

1. To wait for the seller's honest response (do not hold your breath, though)

2. To buy them on EBay

 

 

I do not find 2 roubles coin you are talking about. Maybe a link would be useful

[Loyal Citizen]

I do not find 2 roubles coin you are talking about. Maybe a link would be useful

It got removed by EBay

[GHV]

It got removed by EBay

[Loyal Citizen]

This is the latest; received from the seller:

 

"hello

each coin is from deferent please, 2 rubles I purchased 3 months ago on fed. gov.sized property auction. Authenticity ?, I strongly believe the are authentic.You may have on opinion, I have sent the same coin to ANACS and NGC, the deference is 2 points you know what that mean in value.

thank you

P>S

I will releised the coins soon"

 

Does it make any sense?

[RW Julian]

This is the latest; received from the seller:

 

"hello

each coin is from deferent please, 2 rubles I purchased 3 months ago on fed. gov.sized property auction. Authenticity ?, I strongly believe the are authentic.You may have on opinion, I have sent the same coin to ANACS and NGC, the deference is 2 points you know what that mean in value.

thank you

P>S

I will releised the coins soon"

 

Does it make any sense?

No sense to message.

 

In my opinion the "poltina" (i.e. rouble) of 1779 is a poor cast from a genuine coin. I have a data base of 109 photographs of these 1779 roubles and none of them has the crudity of this piece.

 

The "ruble" of 1779 also seems to match genuine dies though it is much cleaner in the lettering and does not have the appearance of a cast. The photographs are not good enough to be certain, however. This die combination, however, has been seen to date on just one specimen.

 

For those interested in further information, Russian Numismatic Society Journal 81 (winter 2005–2006), pages 37–39, carried an article on the 1779 rouble with illustrations of known die varieties. The "poltina" appears to match die combination 2–B while the "ruble" is like 0–A. These are tentative attributions, however, given the poor quality of the photos on eBay.

 

I would personally avoid both pieces.

 

RWJ

[WCO]

...

The "ruble" of 1779 also seems to match genuine dies though it is much cleaner in the lettering and does not have the appearance of a cast. The photographs are not good enough to be certain, however. This die combination, however, has been seen to date on just one specimen.

...

RWJ

 

 

I also do not see anything that bad about 1779 Ruble (which I told before). There were 1 or 2 pieces of this particular variety sold at Russian auctions within the last 2-3 years. It may be authentic or may be not, impossible to say using pictures provided. I only advise to use caution when giving out negative verdicts, it may interfere with seller's business and ruin his/her reputation.

 

WCO

 

P.S. Here is a link to 2 Rubles piece. The coin was relisted.

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/1756-2-GOLD-RUBLES-CAT...1QQcmdZViewItem

[Loyal Citizen]

P.S. Here is a link to 2 Rubles piece. The coin was relisted.

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/1756-2-GOLD-RUBLES-CAT...1QQcmdZViewItem

 

Good luck, brave numismatists with this 2 roubles !

[GHV]

I also do not see anything that bad about 1779 Ruble (which I told before). There were 1 or 2 pieces of this particular variety sold at Russian auctions within the last 2-3 years. It may be authentic or may be not, impossible to say using pictures provided. I only advise to use caution when giving out negative verdicts, it may interfere with seller's business and ruin his/her reputation.

 

WCO

 

P.S. Here is a link to 2 Rubles piece. The coin was relisted.

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/1756-2-GOLD-RUBLES-CAT...1QQcmdZViewItem

 

Again, I fully agree with WCO,

I don`t think "we" have a right to blame to the Seller who has 6 years experience and almost 100% Pos. FB.

And I don`t think that Seller will F~~~ his self for couple hundred bucks to sell Fake coin.

It is just my opinion.

"We" Better blame to people who sales Super Fake coins which is has even Smale of Fake

[RW Julian]

Again, I fully agree with WCO,

I don`t think "we" have a right to blame to the Seller who has 6 years experience and almost 100% Pos. FB.

And I don`t think that Seller will F~~~ his self for couple hundred bucks to sell Fake coin.

It is just my opinion.

"We" Better blame to people who sales Super Fake coins which is has even Smale of Fake

Feedback is not always a perfect guide. The following seller has 1 negative and has been on eBay for 5 years:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=290047134420

 

RWJ

[Loyal Citizen]

Again, I fully agree with WCO,

I don`t think "we" have a right to blame to the Seller who has 6 years experience and almost 100% Pos. FB.

And I don`t think that Seller will F~~~ his self for couple hundred bucks to sell Fake coin.

It is just my opinion.

"We" Better blame to people who sales Super Fake coins which is has even Smale of Fake

 

First, reading your comments make me think that you always "fully agree". I respect your position but do not accept it.

 

Second, if a seller has knowledge that he is selling a fake coin it makes him/her an equal participant in the fraud regardless of previous experience and number of feedbacks. In this case, I strongly believe, the seller is aware of what he's selling - just read his comments that I posted above - complete nonsense and ignorance!

[GHV]

First, reading your comments make me think that you always "fully agree". I respect your position but do not accept it.

 

Second, if a seller has knowledge that he is selling a fake coin it makes him/her an equal participant in the fraud regardless of previous experience and number of feedbacks. In this case, I strongly believe, the seller is aware of what he's selling - just read his comments that I posted above - complete nonsense and ignorance!

 

LC,

 

When I said "I agree" It means that I have read all opinions and WCO's more close to MINE, (any problems?) so it means that by MY OPINION I see nothing to Blame to the Seller.

It`s impossible by photo to say original or not, but again MY OPINION (if you so interesting) 90% that it`s original and 10% is fake.)

Again MY OPINION builded not only on feed back score or experience, it is one of the Part of MY OPINION.

So in total I think coins OK.

And I don't know who is seller, and don't know he's "expert" or "Air-Seller", it's not really my business.

But againg and again, I CAN'T (and have no rights) blame to the seller, it can damage his reputation. Just looks not really nice from the side.

Now this seller (if somebody will read this topic) will look like a --->

 

I think all clear.

P.S. nobody pushing you to accept my position

[kisenish]

Hi guys

 

My opinion on these 3 pieces:

2 Roubles 1756 is most probably a cast fake - personally I don't like crudity on the shild with St. George (upper part). Why most probably - because I don't see anything like this on the other side.

Rouble 1779 (which is announced as Poltina) - a bad cast fake.

Another Rouble 1779 - MAY be genuine. Strange foto, BTW, Catharina has a double forehead Some crudity on 6-8 o'clock on both sides, but this can be due to a worn die. It dosn't look like a cast copy. But there is something which would make me stay away from this coin: It exhibits some oxidation, especially between the letters, which is very strange for gold coins.

[Loyal Citizen]

Hi guys

 

My opinion on these 3 pieces:

2 Roubles 1756 is most probably a cast fake - personally I don't like crudity on the shild with St. George (upper part). Why most probably - because I don't see anything like this on the other side.

Rouble 1779 (which is announced as Poltina) - a bad cast fake.

Another Rouble 1779 - MAY be genuine. Strenge foto, BTW, Catharina has a double forehead Some crudity on 6-8 o'clock on both sides, but this can be due to a worn die. It dosn't look like a cast copy. But there is something which would make me stay away from this coin: It exhibits some oxidation, especially between the letters, which is very strange for gold coins.

 

Thanks Kisenish.

That's more like it...

[WCO]

Hi guys

...

Strange foto, BTW, Catharina has a double forehead Some crudity on 6-8 o'clock on both sides, but this can be due to a worn die. It dosn't look like a cast copy. But there is something which would make me stay away from this coin: It exhibits some oxidation, especially between the letters, which is very strange for gold coins.

 

That "double forehead" is called double strike, one of the things that tells that the coin was actually struck and is NOT a cast copy. Similar double struck coin (Poltina) was sold on Heritage Auction a few months ago. There Catherine had "double face" not just "double forehead".

 

Between letters is NOT oxidation, it is just dirt that most likely is possible to clean out. The reason to stay away may be because the coin is a "no grade" and has ugly scratches on both sides plus questionable authenticity.

 

WCO

[RW Julian]

That "double forehead" is called double strike, one of the things that tells that the coin was actually struck and is NOT a cast copy. Similar double struck coin (Poltina) was sold on Heritage Auction a few months ago. There Catherine had "double face" not just "double forehead".

Between letters is NOT oxidation, it is just dirt that most likely is possible to clean out. The reason to stay away may be because the coin is a "no grade" and has ugly scratches on both sides plus questionable authenticity.

WCO

In a technical sense, the double profile is the result is a loose obverse die, not a double strike. Dies were held in place by set screws, which sometimes worked loose. This does not, however, say anything for authenticity as an original double-profile coin can also be copied by casting.

 

WCO is correct in noting that double-profile pieces are known for the 1777 poltina. This subject, by coincidence, is to be covered in an article by Craig Sholley appearing in the Russian Numismatic Society Newsletter No. 18, due to be mailed later this week.

 

RWJ

[WCO]

In a technical sense, the double profile is the result is a loose obverse die, not a double strike. Dies were held in place by set screws, which sometimes worked loose. This does not, however, say anything for authenticity as an original double-profile coin can also be copied by casting.

 

WCO is correct in noting that double-profile pieces are known for the 1777 poltina. This subject, by coincidence, is to be covered in an article by Craig Sholley appearing in the Russian Numismatic Society Newsletter No. 18, due to be mailed later this week.

 

RWJ

 

Here is full description of that Poltina piece. Lot: 52454 Auction: 419. "Catherine II gold Poltina 1777, Bit-116, F-136, XF with an interesting double-strike that shows two complete profiles of Catherine. From the Dr. & Mrs. E.E. Banfield Collection."

 

So no matter what it is "technically", but obviously one of the dies struck the planchet twice and it is a "double strike" therefore. At least it is what cataloguers called it and I agree to that. Since I see that the coin we were discussing is NOT a cast copy for me such a "double strike" is one more evidence of its authenticity (with full understanding that cast copy may have it too if it was present on original coin). My assumption is that no counterfeiter would want to make so distinguishable fake coins.

 

WCO

[RW Julian]

Here is full description of that Poltina piece. Lot: 52454 Auction: 419. "Catherine II gold Poltina 1777, Bit-116, F-136, XF with an interesting double-strike that shows two complete profiles of Catherine. From the Dr. & Mrs. E.E. Banfield Collection."

 

So no matter what it is "technically", but obviously one of the dies struck the planchet twice and it is a "double strike" therefore. At least it is what cataloguers called it and I agree to that. Since I see that the coin we were discussing is NOT a cast copy for me such a "double strike" is one more evidence of its authenticity (with full understanding that cast copy may have it too if it was present on original coin). My assumption is that no counterfeiter would want to make so distinguishable fake coins.

 

WCO

 

The fact that a double profile piece exists is no evidence of authenticity as casts can be made from a genuine original. It is also worth noting that in the U.S. numismatic market counterfeiters have been known to make "error" coins as they sell better than regular pieces.

 

RWJ