RW Julian Posted January 16, 2007 Report Share Posted January 16, 2007 This is perhaps a contemporary counterfeit: http://cgi.ebay.com/RARE-1901-AP-RUSSIA-SI...1QQcmdZViewItem Originals were struck only in proof for the Redko (AP) sets that year. RWJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKB Posted January 16, 2007 Report Share Posted January 16, 2007 This is perhaps a contemporary counterfeit: http://cgi.ebay.com/RARE-1901-AP-RUSSIA-SI...1QQcmdZViewItem Originals were struck only in proof for the Redko (AP) sets that year. RWJ To me it looks like a counterfeit for circulation, which actually circulated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobh Posted January 16, 2007 Report Share Posted January 16, 2007 This is perhaps a contemporary counterfeit: http://cgi.ebay.com/RARE-1901-AP-RUSSIA-SI...1QQcmdZViewItem Originals were struck only in proof for the Redko (AP) sets that year. RWJ The inside of the "0" in the date looks too narrow to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobh Posted January 17, 2007 Report Share Posted January 17, 2007 I sent the seller of this coin the following question:"How do you explain the fact that there were only proof coins struck for the 1901-AP 20 kopeek series? This coin is obviously not a proof strike; besides, the inside of the ''0'' looks too narrow to me to be genuine." Today he answered: "It is a proof that was circulated is what I am told by the expert. Regards, MARTY" I replied: "You need to get another expert!" Not only the entire date looks wrong, but also the bottom of the wreath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW Julian Posted January 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2007 I sent the seller of this coin the following question:"How do you explain the fact that there were only proof coins struck for the 1901-AP 20 kopeek series? This coin is obviously not a proof strike; besides, the inside of the ''0'' looks too narrow to me to be genuine." Today he answered: "It is a proof that was circulated is what I am told by the expert. Regards, MARTY" I replied: "You need to get another expert!" Not only the entire date looks wrong, but also the bottom of the wreath. I sent the seller a note to the effect that it was a contemporary counterfeit. He replied, asking for further details. I explained that these dies did not match the genuine dies and sent a jpeg of a genuine coin so that he could make his own comparison. The eagle tail feathers are badly done on his piece as is the reverse wreath bow, as noted by bobh. I did NOT tell the seller that it was a circulated proof. RWJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW Julian Posted January 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2007 I sent the seller of this coin the following question:"How do you explain the fact that there were only proof coins struck for the 1901-AP 20 kopeek series? This coin is obviously not a proof strike; besides, the inside of the ''0'' looks too narrow to me to be genuine." Today he answered: "It is a proof that was circulated is what I am told by the expert. Regards, MARTY" I replied: "You need to get another expert!" Not only the entire date looks wrong, but also the bottom of the wreath. This is a photograph, of an original, that was furnished to the seller: 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.