FAKES not on eBay

[BKB]

What are you thoughts on this "half jefimok"?

 

http://www.sixbid.com/home/auctions/mmamerica/mma15/a15.htm

 

In my mind it started its "Russian coin" life as full jefimok. Then it was cut in half -- which makes it a curiosity at best (if cut in 18th century) or a fake -- which is more like it. It would be nice if that was mentioned in the description.

 

On top of it, there is a number of fakes being sold attributed as fakes. I wonder, -- does it signify the shortage of material?

[gxseries]

BKB, can you tell us what lot number you are talking about? The link is not doing it as it's just referring to the Peter I coinage sales list.

[IgorS]

Lot 1009. BKB, I have the same feeling as you. The stamps are positioned absolutly wrong. It will be interesting to see it in person.

[gxseries]

Direct link: http://www.sixbid.com/home/auctions/mmamer...15/01009H00.HTM

[bobh]

[...snip...]On top of it, there is a number of fakes being sold attributed as fakes. I wonder, -- does it signify the shortage of material?

I also felt that there was much less material than last year, although I didn't take the trouble to compare every period offered. Unfortunate for me (collecting especially 50 kopeek of Nicholas II) is that there is only ONE COIN being offered from that series!

 

Also, neither the last UBS auction nor the recent "Numismatica Genevensis" auction had any of these for sale -- or if they did, I probably already had that year and MM in better condition.

[BKB]

Direct link: http://www.sixbid.com/home/auctions/mmamer...15/01009H00.HTM

 

thank you, gx :-) I am not too good with this internet stuff.

 

2 igor: Of course! The originals were first cut, then counterstamped. This was done to make sure that there are complete counterstamps on both halfs. I am pretty sure that it is a modern cut. I would not be surprized if the other half appears soon: someone made sure that the other half also has partial counterstamps.

 

The issue is: we almost never discuss fakes outside of ebay. While, people on eBay may not always be professionals, -- I believe, that auctioneers like DM cannot possibly miss such things. After all, he has only 1 auction per year. Even if this "coin" came from his auction partners, he should not have listed it. Thus, whatever is being done -- is being done consciously and on purpose. (IMXO) And, there is no eBay to stop the auction :-)

[WCO]

What are you thoughts on this "half jefimok"?

 

In my mind it started its "Russian coin" life as full jefimok. Then it was cut in half -- which makes it a curiosity at best (if cut in 18th century) or a fake -- which is more like it. It would be nice if that was mentioned in the description.

 

On top of it, there is a number of fakes being sold attributed as fakes. I wonder, -- does it signify the shortage of material?

 

I am not that much familiar with pre Peter I coins. But I looked at the Half Efimok coin and agreed that it was most likely first stamped and then cut in half.

 

It indeed may be done because Half Efimok coins are scarcer than full Efimoks and therefore cost more. So there could be a reason for counterfeiters to do so, i.e. cut half of a coin leaving bigger part of "Tsar on a horse" stamp and almost complete date.

 

The questions still are.

 

1. Could the cut be done at the mint after counterstamping was done? If yes then the coin may be authentic.

 

2. Is there on the cut edge evidence that stamp "Tsar on the horse" was stamped AFTER the coin was cut in halves? If yes, then the coin may be authentic. Necessary to see the cut edge if there is extra metal moved by stamping.

 

3. Are we certain that there is "no way" Efimok could be cut in halves AFTER counterstamping at the mint? Then this one is a fake.

 

While here is no evidence to eather 1, 2 or 3 then I would not be calling it "a fake" for now. Just coin with questionable authenticity. I would personally avoid it just because there is a chance it may be a fake (no difference recently made fake or older one).

 

WCO

[BKB]

The questions still are.

 

1. Could the cut be done at the mint after counterstamping was done? If yes then the coin may be authentic.

 

No. This was not how it was done at the mint.

 

2. Is there on the cut edge evidence that stamp "Tsar on the horse" was stamped AFTER the coin was cut in halves? If yes, then the coin may be authentic. Necessary to see the cut edge if there is extra metal moved by stamping.

 

It is obvious from the picture that cut was done AFTER and not BEFORE. There is no displaced metal -- the cut is pretty straight. The stamps, however, are deformed by the cut

 

3. Are we certain that there is "no way" Efimok could be cut in halves AFTER counterstamping at the mint? Then this one is a fake.

 

Not only that the coins were not cut after stamping. It is very interesting to see if the coin itself is not a fake. The stamps are somewhat suspicious.

[WCO]

The questions still are.

 

1. Could the cut be done at the mint after counterstamping was done? If yes then the coin may be authentic.

 

No. This was not how it was done at the mint.

 

2. Is there on the cut edge evidence that stamp "Tsar on the horse" was stamped AFTER the coin was cut in halves? If yes, then the coin may be authentic. Necessary to see the cut edge if there is extra metal moved by stamping.

 

It is obvious from the picture that cut was done AFTER and not BEFORE. There is no displaced metal -- the cut is pretty straight. The stamps, however, are deformed by the cut

 

3. Are we certain that there is "no way" Efimok could be cut in halves AFTER counterstamping at the mint? Then this one is a fake.

 

Not only that the coins were not cut after stamping. It is very interesting to see if the coin itself is not a fake. The stamps are somewhat suspicious.

 

 

While I 95% agree with you I still leave chances that 1, 2 or 3 may be true and this coin is not a fake. This is all I tried to point out, there is no 100% certainty that it is a fake.

 

WCO

[IgorS]

On top of it, there is a number of fakes being sold attributed as fakes. I wonder, -- does it signify the shortage of material?

 

If you check 100 year old price lists of some famous coin shops (Kopylov, etc.), they often had copies and galvanos of rare coin. This was a way to 'plug a hole'. Today it is probably different, but I am sure there are collectors out there interested in curious near numismatic items. In some cases you have to be impressed with quality of non-mint produced antiquarian copies/fakes. Lot 1004, for example, is simply great.

[Timofei]

Lot 1004, for example, is simply great.

 

Not just great, but also catalogued and published! (as Mr. Markov says, I didn't check that myself).

[BKB]

If you check 100 year old price lists of some famous coin shops (Kopylov, etc.), they often had copies and galvanos of rare coin. This was a way to 'plug a hole'. Today it is probably different, but I am sure there are collectors out there interested in curious near numismatic items. In some cases you have to be impressed with a quality of non-mint produced antiquarian copies/fakes. Lot 1004, for example, is simply great.

 

If this logic is followed, we should be buying all the fakes on the market while they are cheap. 200 years from now our descendants will make a killing selling this crap for a lot of money. Maybe the best long term investment yet So, our discussion of the fakes on eBay should be: oh... another great fake on eBay!!! Let us buy it while it is still cheap!!!! I do not get it. A fake is a fake, no matter how long ago produced. See what happens when you start accepting "Novodels" as numismatic items? -- fakes are next. And, for $2000 -- what a bargain!!!! If it sold ones, why not sell it again

[WCO]

If this logic is followed, we should be buying all the fakes on the market while they are cheap. 200 years from now our descendants will make a killing selling this crap for a lot of money. Maybe the best long term investment yet So, our discussion of the fakes on eBay should be: oh... another great fake on eBay!!! Let us buy it while it is still cheap!!!! I do not get it. A fake is a fake, no matter how long ago produced. See what happens when you start accepting "Novodels" as numismatic items? -- fakes are next. And, for $2000 -- what a bargain!!!! If it sold ones, why not sell it again

 

 

Good point.

 

But I would exclude Novodels from "fakes", that's another "story".

 

WCO

[IgorS]

If this logic is followed, we should be buying all the fakes on the market while they are cheap. 200 years from now our descendants will make a killing selling this crap for a lot of money. Maybe the best long term investment yet So, our discussion of the fakes on eBay should be: oh... another great fake on eBay!!! Let us buy it while it is still cheap!!!! I do not get it. A fake is a fake, no matter how long ago produced. See what happens when you start accepting "Novodels" as numismatic items? -- fakes are next. And, for $2000 -- what a bargain!!!! If it sold ones, why not sell it again

What logic are you refering to? First of all, the technology was different back than. They did not use high tech military secret super duper state of the art equipment to make stuff we see today. Second of all, I simply mentioned that some collectors today collect near numismatic items. Third of all, we should buy things that give us years of joy, even if they are crap to everyone else .

[Oldman]

Hello everyone!

 

Nice topic (actually, already discussed in this forum a couple of days before). We're again talking about professionalism in its wider meaning: not just being able to detect a fake but also (which is even more important to me) being able to refuse to list such "questionable" items on an auction. We can, again, go back to Mr Gorny, Baron...now Markov...?

 

As to this half-efimok, I tend to agree with Igors - w/o having the coin in your hands it is almost impossible to tell what that is. The rim and edges are the most critical parts in determining sequence of "cutting/stamping" events for these coins.

 

The Oldman.

[grivna1726]

The questions still are.

 

1. Could the cut be done at the mint after counterstamping was done? If yes then the coin may be authentic.

 

No. This was not how it was done at the mint.

 

2. Is there on the cut edge evidence that stamp "Tsar on the horse" was stamped AFTER the coin was cut in halves? If yes, then the coin may be authentic. Necessary to see the cut edge if there is extra metal moved by stamping.

 

It is obvious from the picture that cut was done AFTER and not BEFORE. There is no displaced metal -- the cut is pretty straight. The stamps, however, are deformed by the cut

 

3. Are we certain that there is "no way" Efimok could be cut in halves AFTER counterstamping at the mint? Then this one is a fake.

 

Not only that the coins were not cut after stamping. It is very interesting to see if the coin itself is not a fake. The stamps are somewhat suspicious.

 

 

BKB, I agree that the half yefimok was originally a full yefimok, for the reasons which you have stated.

 

As far as the novodel issue goes, if a coin was made in the mint, either as an original or as a restrike, then it is genuine. If it was made outside of the mint, then it is a fake.

 

I've yet to meet a collector who insists that all 1804 dollars are fakes because there were none struck with that date until the 1830s. One could adopt that position, of course, but I don't know anyone who has.

 

If the 1804 US dollar novodels are accepted, then I don't see why Russian novodels should be held to a different standard.

[BKB]

If the 1804 US dollar novodels are accepted, then I don't see why Russian novodels should be held to a different standard.

 

There is a difference between 1804 dollar, which was more of an exception, and Russian novodels. Those were mass produced, most of them for the wrong reasons. But, I think I said that before...

 

In this instance, we are not discussing novodels. We are discussing what is most likely a fake being passed for an original coin. We are also discussing a fake being sold as "...antiquarian copy of some 200 plus years suitable in any collection. In fact, even as a copy it is much rarer than Novodel Roubles of the same Tsar." (lot description) We see someone who is a well known dealer shamelessly comparing the rarity of a fake to that of a novodel. This is the only reason why I mentioned novodels at all. Mr Markov is the one who placed them on the same shelf, not me.

[RW Julian]

There is a difference between 1804 dollar, which was more of an exception, and Russian novodels. Those were mass produced, most of them for the wrong reasons. But, I think I said that before...

 

In this instance, we are not discussing novodels. We are discussing what is most likely a fake being passed for an original coin. We are also discussing a fake being sold as "...antiquarian copy of some 200 plus years suitable in any collection. In fact, even as a copy it is much rarer than Novodel Roubles of the same Tsar." (lot description) We see someone who is a well known dealer shamelessly comparing the rarity of a fake to that of a novodel. This is the only reason why I mentioned novodels at all. Mr Markov is the one who placed them on the same shelf, not me.

Some thoughts on this topic:

 

1) The 1997 Sotheby’s sale, of the Fuchs collection of Jefimoks, indicates that the Moscow Mint counterstamped cut talers in order to create half Jefimoks. Therefore, such pieces were known to the public, however rare that might be. We do not, however, know to what extent the half Jefimoks were made because when the majority of the pieces were melted over the next several decades, only the best full-weight pieces would have been kept, not “damaged” coins that had been cut in two.

 

2) It was sometimes true in older societies that coins were cut to create smaller denominations. (Eight reales coins are known to have been cut into quarters, for example, as late as the 1790s in the Caribbean.) The coin in question seems to me to have the appearance of having been cut in order to create a half Jefimok for the marketplace of, say, the 1660s. Whether this was done at the Mint as an afterthought or by a private person after the coin left the Mint I will leave for others to determine.

 

3) Actually, the U.S. production of novodels, which was done from the 1830s through 1869, was probably much heavier than in Russia, with many thousands of pieces made for collectors. The Gobrecht dollars of 1836–39 and the 1856 Flying Eagle cent were made in relatively large quantities, for example.

 

RWJ

[grivna1726]

There is a difference between 1804 dollar, which was more of an exception, and Russian novodels. Those were mass produced, most of them for the wrong reasons. But, I think I said that before...

 

In this instance, we are not discussing novodels. We are discussing what is most likely a fake being passed for an original coin. We are also discussing a fake being sold as "...antiquarian copy of some 200 plus years suitable in any collection. In fact, even as a copy it is much rarer than Novodel Roubles of the same Tsar." (lot description) We see someone who is a well known dealer shamelessly comparing the rarity of a fake to that of a novodel. This is the only reason why I mentioned novodels at all. Mr Markov is the one who placed them on the same shelf, not me.

 

 

A fake is a fake is a fake, no matter whether made yesterday or 200 years ago. I agree with you on that point.

 

However some contemporary counterfeits have a legitimate place in numismatics. Here is an example of a contemporary counterfeit "gold" coin made at a time when platinum was considered nearly worthless. It might not be a "real" coin, but it has a legitimate place in numismatics and has a neat story behind it as a circulating platinum "coin" which preceded the Russian issues:

 

 

Cheers!

[WCO]

Now the story with half Efimok finally is down to this. Do we think the coin is an authentic piece if it was minted as Efimok and cut shortly later and circulated as half Efimok after that? If we answer yes, then the coin is authentic after all.

 

Another related question. Are half Hrivnas authentic, they all were cut at later time and for needs of circulation? Can we call them non authentic just because they are halves?

 

WCO

[WCO]

... Are we certain that there is "no way" Efimok could be cut in halves AFTER counterstamping at the mint? ...

 

... the coins were not cut after stamping...

 

More...

 

... Of course! The originals were first cut, then counterstamped. This was done to make sure that there are complete counterstamps on both halfs. I am pretty sure that it is a modern cut...

 

 

BKB,

 

You see where you did a mistake. You stated that Efimok coins were never cut after stamping, and this is not true. You also thought this cut was made at modern times. The rest of your logic led you to conclude that this piece is not authentic therefore. And this is wrong too, this piece is OK, i.e. authentic.

 

WCO

[Timofei]

I think not many of us ever had half-efimok in their collection, but the looks of the coin from Russian sale is really suspicios. It is well known fact that efimoks were counterfeited long time ago. Half efimok as extremely rare piece (about 20 known).

 

These 2 are authentic:

http://www.coinarchives.com/w/lotviewer.ph...80&Lot=2012

http://www.coinarchives.com/w/lotviewer.ph...84&Lot=6302

 

Here is the history of the piece we discuss: poor buyers try to sell such a rare coin every year Not a very nice pedigree.

http://www.coinarchives.com/w/lotviewer.ph...84&Lot=6143

http://www.coinarchives.com/w/lotviewer.ph...06&Lot=4450

[IgorS]

I think not many of us ever had half-efimok in their collection, but the looks of the coin from Russian sale is really suspicios. It is well known fact that efimoks were counterfeited long time ago. Half efimok as extremely rare piece (about 20 known).

 

These 2 are authentic:

http://www.coinarchives.com/w/lotviewer.ph...80&Lot=2012

http://www.coinarchives.com/w/lotviewer.ph...84&Lot=6302

 

Here is the history of the piece we discuss: poor buyers try to sell such a rare coin every year Not a very nice pedigree.

http://www.coinarchives.com/w/lotviewer.ph...84&Lot=6143

http://www.coinarchives.com/w/lotviewer.ph...06&Lot=4450

 

Coinarchives.com proves to be a very usefull site.

[Oldman]

Here is the history of the piece we discuss: poor buyers try to sell such a rare coin every year Not a very nice pedigree.

 

Mr Timofei,

 

I think you've just sounded what the majority was suspecting ...on pedigree

 

The Oldman

[Timofei]

Coinarchives.com proves to be a very usefull site.

 

 

If many of us make a smallest donation of 5-10-20$ we surely will help this brilliant enthusiast A.J. Gatlin

who created Coinsarchives website to keep the project going on. Or at least a few words of appreciation will be good too. One of the most (if not the very best and the most) useful coin websites in the Internet! I visit the database several times a day.