RW Julian Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 The attached picture is of the date area on an 1833 poltina. There is a clear overdate, 1833/1, which is unexpected because there are no known reverses of this type dated 1831. The writer also has an 1832 poltina with the overdate 1832/1, again unexpected. It would appear that the Mint was considering changing the reverse in 1831 to the type adopted in 1832. The top two arrows point at the remains of the figure 1 while the third arrow points at the remains of the original mintmark, which was much smaller than that adopted in 1832. Only the letter B of SPB is clearly seen. If anyone reading this post has either the 1832 or 1833 poltina, it would be of interest to learn if a normal date exists. RWJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 Wow I have a 1832 poltina but I don't think it's an overdate or it's not clear enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grivna1726 Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 Wow I have a 1832 poltina but I don't think it's an overdate or it's not clear enough. The picture is too small to say. Is it possible for you to post a higher resolution scan of just the date area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 This is the best I can do with the archived photo that I have - the coin is not with me at the moment, else I would have shot another one: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kisenish Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 This is my exemplar of poltina 1832: As to details: It could be 1832/1 overdate when looking at "2", it may have some traces of the underlying "1": Even more interesting are the apparent traces of the original mintmark. You can see remains of a small "П" in "СПБ", especially the feet of small "П": Can it be an overdate / m/m overstrike too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW Julian Posted January 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 This is my exemplar of poltina 1832:As to details: It could be 1832/1 overdate when looking at "2", it may have some traces of the underlying "1": Even more interesting are the apparent traces of the original mintmark. You can see remains of a small "?" in "???", especially the feet of small "?": Can it be an overdate / m/m overstrike too? Your 1832 poltina appears to be from the same reverse die as my specimen; I consider this to be an 1832/1 overdate. The mintmark SPB has been recut here as well and made much larger. RWJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW Julian Posted January 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 This is the best I can do with the archived photo that I have - the coin is not with me at the moment, else I would have shot another one: I do not see any trace of an overdate. The 1832 poltina is a rare coin and the possible existence of two key varieties (overdate and non-overdate) makes it even more interesting. RWJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 Very interesting! Never thought the 1832 poltina would be rare (I don't see that many poltinas anyway) Just took a research and checked how difficult it is: http://coins.heritageauctions.com/common/v...mp;Lot_No=13828 None on molotok? The overdate must be much harder to find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW Julian Posted January 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 Very interesting! Never thought the 1832 poltina would be rare (I don't see that many poltinas anyway)Just took a research and checked how difficult it is: http://coins.heritageauctions.com/common/v...mp;Lot_No=13828 None on molotok? The overdate must be much harder to find. The poltinas of 1832–1835 are very difficult to obtain and are seldom seen at auction. I suspect that the overdate will prove the more “common” for 1832 but this will only be known as more specimens are published. RWJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.