Jump to content
CoinPeople.com

5 kopek 1791 AM with broad "1" - Overdate or variety?


kisenish
 Share

Recommended Posts

Dear community :ninja:

 

First I put the pictures at the end of another thread, but actually it is a separate question ;)

 

Is it really the 5 kopek 1791/0 AM overdate (Brekke #91 suppl), or is it just the strange digit "1" with a big foot? (not common for 1791 AM)

 

5k91amdq6.th.jpg5k91amfragmentem2.th.jpg

 

Here is the "etalon" for 5 kopek 1791 AM (no overdate)

 

cavideu0.th.jpg

 

You can see, that the digit "1" in "91" has usually a small foot.

 

What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear community

First I put the pictures at the end of another thread, but actually it is a separate question :ninja:

Is it really the 5 kopek 1791/0 AM overdate (Brekke #91 suppl), or is it just the strange digit "1" with a big foot? (not common for 1791 AM)

Here is the "etalon" for 5 kopek 1791 AM (no overdate)

You can see, that the digit "1" in "91" has usually a small foot.

What do you think?

It appears that the engraver was merely adding a small flourish to the figure 1. I do not think that it is an overdate.

 

RWJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it really the 5 kopek 1791/0 AM overdate (Brekke #91 suppl), or is it just the strange digit "1" with a big foot? (not common for 1791 AM)

 

5k91amdq6.th.jpg5k91amfragmentem2.th.jpg

 

Here is the "etalon" for 5 kopek 1791 AM (no overdate)

 

cavideu0.th.jpg

Weren't the digits punched into the dies? How else would the engraver achieve identical digits? See the monety coin. In that case there could not have been occured an ornament.

I would tend to an overdate 1/0. Sigi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weren't the digits punched into the dies? How else would the engraver achieve identical digits? See the monety coin. In that case there could not have been occured an ornament.

I would tend to an overdate 1/0. Sigi

I agree that it is possible for this to be an overdate but I think it is not for the following reasons:

 

1) The spur at the low right seems to be above the main part of the figure and therefore deep in the die. It appears to have been punched after the main figure 1. It is probably an attempt to add a stronger serif at this point.

 

2) Overdates are normally created in one of two ways. The first is to simply punch the new figure over the old, in which case the underdate is very clear. This method is seen on many Russian coins but is not the situation here.

 

3) The other method for overdates, which is seen more often, is to grind down the date area to be changed and then punch in the new figure. It is possible that this happened in here but the fact that there are no other vestiges of the figure 0 in the field (that I can see) around the 1 speaks against this having happened. It is also worth noting that the figure 0 would not, one would think, have especially deep points (the spur) that would show up at this exact spot.

 

In some cases the question of an overdate may never be settled. There are certain U.S. coins over which experts have argued for years as to whether an overdate actually exists. (The 1879/8 Shield nickel is one such case, for example.)

 

RWJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just discussed this piece with RWJ and there is little doubt in my mind that it is an overdate. RWJ is leaning that way, but we continue to argue the merits.

 

Briefly, my argument is that the "spur" off the left lower serif tip and the one just above the right lower serif of the 1 are an exact match to that seen on kisenish's other 1791 Overdate. Compare the blowups and you'll note a spur just above the right serif and one off the tip of the left serif - both the same shape and direction on both coins.

 

Additionally, the coin in question shows defects under both serifs which again match the arc of an undertype 0 as seen on the 1791/90/8? coin.

 

And, IMHO, none of these defects presents a morphology consistent with a graver mark. They're simply too oddly shaped and on planes inconsistent with engraving strokes (unless the engraver was blind or had cerebral palsey ;):ninja: ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just discussed this piece with RWJ and there is little doubt in my mind that it is an overdate. RWJ is leaning that way, but we continue to argue the merits.

 

Briefly, my argument is that the "spur" off the left lower serif tip and the one just above the right lower serif of the 1 are an exact match to that seen on kisenish's other 1791 Overdate. Compare the blowups and you'll note a spur just above the right serif and one off the tip of the left serif - both the same shape and direction on both coins.

 

Additionally, the coin in question shows defects under both serifs which again match the arc of an undertype 0 as seen on the 1791/90/8? coin.

 

And, IMHO, none of these defects presents a morphology consistent with a graver mark. They're simply too oddly shaped and on planes inconsistent with engraving strokes (unless the engraver was blind or had cerebral palsey ;):ninja: ).

 

Interesting in this coin is that only the lower part of "0" is seen. Is it possible that the "0" in this 1790 die was not completely finished and then re-engraved to "1"? Maybe, initially the die was scheduled for use in 1790 and, in the middle of the work, where "0" was finished to a half, they changed their mind and scheduled the die to use in 1791, thus, still not finished "0" was re-engraved to "1".

 

Is it possible? Are there examples of overdates from unfinished dies, where the digit is not completely missing but present to a part??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting in this coin is that only the lower part of "0" is seen. Is it possible that the "0" in this 1790 die was not completely finished and then re-engraved to "1"? Maybe, initially the die was scheduled for use in 1790 and, in the middle of the work, where "0" was finished to a half, they changed their mind and scheduled the die to use in 1791, thus, still not finished "0" was re-engraved to "1".

 

Is it possible? Are there examples of overdates from unfinished dies, where the digit is not completely missing but present to a part??

 

IMHO, the most likely scenario was the typical: The die was fully dated 1790 and went unused. It was then lapped to remove the 0 and overdated with a 1. In this case the die was merely lapped a little better than average thus removing most of the 0. While not typical for Russian, this level of lapping is not uncommon.

 

Additionally, I note that the detail looks a bit mushy. This may simply be strike, but it also could be due to late state dies. As the dies wear, the undertype would weaken due to erosion.

 

Congrats on a nice discovery. Hope you'll consider publishing it in the Russian Numismatic Journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congrats on a nice discovery. Hope you'll consider publishing it in the Russian Numismatic Journal.

 

Thanks a lot! To publish something in JRNS was always my dream, I'm already planning it. Until now, I have published only papers about the less interesting stuff (voltage-gated ion channels) :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...