Jump to content
CoinPeople.com

Proof Finnish Imperial Coins


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 143
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

2: Oldman. Two guys .... they never seen such coins in their lives but pretty much sure that they are "bogus novodel pieces if not fakes". So tell me, are your slabbed coins bogus Novodels or just Fakes all together? :ninja:

 

------------------------

 

2: dk_spb. Since you cared to tell how you understand the issue here is what I think:

 

1) Technology to make Proofs was implemented at Helsinki mint. It was used to strike medals (and many medals in Proof minted during that time are known) and it was used to strike very small number of coins for VIP persons.

 

2) While some early Proof coins were minted at later time and therefore are Novodels, many (if not all) later dates are NOT Novodels and struck in their years.

 

3) Some of Proof coins were sold at Hess auction of 1913 and this may serve as evidence of existence of such coins in addition to many other facts and prove that at least SOME such coins were struck NOT LATER THAN 1913.

 

WCO

Link to post
Share on other sites
2: Oldman. Two guys .... they never seen such coins in their lives but pretty much sure that they are "bogus novodel pieces if not fakes". So tell me, are your slabbed coins bogus Novodels or just Fakes all together? :ninja:

 

WCO

 

Good question , really ! Looking at the coin I've just posted I AM NO LONGER SURE ! ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2: Oldman. Two guys dk_spb and Timofei are very funny guys, they never seen such coins in their lives but pretty much sure that they are "bogus novodel pieces if not fakes". So tell me, are your slabbed coins bogus Novodels or just Fakes all together? :ninja:

....

 

As I know it is clear fact from documents from mint that all special quality coins for VIP collector was minted in coins department (not in medals department). There no any records about minting coins for VIP in medals deparment.

 

1) Technology to make Proofs was implemented at Helsinki mint. It was used to strike medals (and many medals in Proof minted during that time are known)

Could you tell me few medals for example? Better before 1880.

 

3) Some of Proof coins were sold at Hess auction of 1913 and this may serve as evidence of

It was not proofs coins. It was PP. In russian thsi condition was described as "polirovannaya prekrasnaya" (polished). Not proof.

 

To Oldman: I can not say anything about your coin because your scan is no so good. Could you provide me better scans?

I think this is coin was minted by fresh dies.

 

You can check really proof coins and compare it to your coin. This coin from one of finnish auctions.

123.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
To Oldman: I can not say anything about your coin because your scan is no so good. Could you provide me better scans?

I think this is coin was minted by fresh dies.

 

You can check really proof coins and compare it to your coin. This coin from one of finnish auctions.

 

Sorry, this was the best I could do - I do not want to spend more time on it . You got an idea and can clearly see the details.

 

So long,

Link to post
Share on other sites

>2: Oldman. Two guys .... they never seen such coins in their lives

> but pretty much sure that they are "bogus novodel pieces if not fakes". So tell me, are your slabbed coins

> bogus Novodels or just Fakes all together?

 

.... a little bit of clarification - by the words "bogus novodel pieces if not fakes" I meant finnish 20 markka gold coin with 'misteriously' polished coats-of-arms, graded by TPG as proof. The coin you sold.

 

Again I saw a number of Finnish proofs in silver and copper (2 markka included!) and I do believe those were PP coins specially made for collectors. For those interested - you can see the collection offered now by Ekaterina\MiM auction next April. I had the entire collection in my hand and I think (with some exceptions) that majority is proof or PP.

Link to post
Share on other sites
... Again I saw a number of Finnish proofs in silver and copper (2 markka included!) and I do believe those were PP coins specially made for collectors. For those interested - you can see the collection offered now by Ekaterina\MiM auction next April. I had the entire collection in my hand and I think (with some exceptions) that majority is proof or PP.

 

Tell it to dk_spb then. :ninja: He will answer the following: "It was not proofs coins. It was PP. In russian this condition was described as "polirovannaya prekrasnaya" (polished). Not proof".

 

--------------------------

 

....

As I know it is clear fact from documents from mint that all special quality coins for VIP collector was minted in coins department (not in medals department). There no any records about minting coins for VIP in medals deparment.

Could you tell me few medals for example? Better before 1880.

It was not proofs coins. It was PP. In russian thsi condition was described as "polirovannaya prekrasnaya" (polished). Not proof.

.....

 

.... I NEVER SAID THAT COINS WERE MINTED IN MEDALS DEPARTMENT!

I said that PROOF TECHNOLOGY was used to strike COINS and MEDALS without mentioning any department at all. Capish? ;)

 

 

Regards,

WCO

Link to post
Share on other sites

....

 

I think we need to agree on something, that is were there ever any proof coins minted in Helsinki Mint. Mr. Tuukka Talvio seems to avoid the topic - maybe because it might be some language translation issues that we are missing.

 

On the other hand, I'm not too sure if WCO is agreeing or disagreeing about the existance of proof coins. WCO, if I am not mistaken, you said "polished" condition - does it mean that the dies were polished before striking? But in that case, aren't all proof coins' dies polished before the coins get striked?

 

From what I see from the images, these are definately more than an average UNC coin - most definately at least proof-like at worst to possibly proof. UNC Finnish coins are silver-greyish however these coins are significantly brighter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
....

On the other hand, I'm not too sure if WCO is agreeing or disagreeing about the existance of proof coins. WCO, if I am not mistaken, you said "polished" condition - does it mean that the dies were polished before striking? But in that case, aren't all proof coins' dies polished before the coins get striked?

....

 

I just repeat my previous post.

 

1) Technology to make Proofs was implemented at Helsinki mint. It was used to strike medals (and many medals in Proof minted during that time are known) and it was used to strike very small number of coins for VIP persons.

 

2) While some early Proof coins were minted at later time and therefore are Novodels, many (if not all) later dates are NOT Novodels and struck in their years.

 

3) Some of Proof coins were sold at Hess auction of 1913 and this may serve as evidence of existence of such coins in addition to many other facts and prove that at least SOME such coins were struck NOT LATER THAN 1913.

 

 

So how it looks from it "WCO is agreeing or disagreeing about the existance of proof coins"?

 

-----------------

 

Finnish Proofs EXIST (and not only as 1872 and 1898 25 Pennia Novodels). This was my point from the beginning! Finnish proofs EXIST! In all metals and for many dates! I wrote it several times over in this thread alone, what is here not to understand.

 

WCO

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the main points that I have been looking for are all in one post this time. The thread got too cluttered up with other non-numismatic related materials.

 

WCO, would there by any chance be any reference books that you have been using?

 

I am curious where such materials exists - I do want to get a hold of such infomation but often I have no idea what books there are as well as them being scarce at all times :ninja:

Link to post
Share on other sites
....

WCO, would there by any chance be any reference books that you have been using?

 

I am curious where such materials exists - I do want to get a hold of such infomation but often I have no idea what books there are as well as them being scarce at all times :ninja:

 

No, there are no books or other comprehensive references that I am aware of. Helsinki mint official position is that they NEVER struck any Proofs prior to 1990's. This position is UNDERSTANDABLE and it is clear why Helsinki mint officials stay on this position. They just use different terminology, and in their opinion Proof is a MODERN technology of last decades. Since DIFFERENT FROM MODERN technology was used 100 years ago or so to strike coins that we today also call Proofs, therefore Helsinki mint never will admit existence of such coins. They do not admit existence of such a (Proof) technology 100 years ago on the first place. No technology, so no coins struck using this technology.

 

All references that I use are works of GM, and many different catalogs as Worldwide Coins of California, Goldberg's, etc. that used to sell this kind of coins, listed them as Proofs, some of such coins were graded as Proofs by NGC or PCGS and sold as Proofs. And no buyer ever disputed that they are Proofs, and no one ever said that grading services made a mistake by grading them as Proofs. This kind of coins can be traced of being sold from 1913 Hess auction. I compared this kind of coins to other Proofs from different countries including Russia. Technology that was used to strike these coins is called Proof in 9/10 of the world, and DOES NOT called Proof in Russia and Finland (Finland was part of Russia at that time).

 

WCO

Link to post
Share on other sites

the Suomi Superhero has decided to use his super powers and bring this thread back to being a very USEFUL discussion and interesting debate. HINT: debates are best won by supporting your hypotheses with well constructed assertions and with supporting evidence when possible, not by disparaging your opponent. :ninja:

Link to post
Share on other sites
the Suomi Superhero has decided to use his super powers and bring this thread back to being a very USEFUL discussion and interesting debate. HINT: debates are best won by supporting your hypotheses with well constructed assertions and with supporting evidence when possible, not by disparaging your opponent. :ninja:

I agree - the discussion is a little bit off the track ;)

I have not heard any opnion on the coin I'd posted above.

Well... I guess it just adds up to the pile of uncertainty , doesn't it ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
...

I have not heard any opnion on the coin I'd posted above.

....

 

Actually there was an opinion of dk_spb posted above. Here it is:

 

"... I think this is coin was minted by fresh dies".

 

So basically dk_spb is saying that your 1875 25 Pennia is graded as Proof in error and should be graded as MS65PL instead, i.e. as Prooflike business strike made with a fresh pair of dies.

 

----

 

And if you are interested in my opinion, then I would say this is a very nice and super appealing Proof with choice mirrors and frosted details and it is promptly graded as Proof by NGC.

----

 

Best regards,

 

WCO

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree - the discussion is a little bit off the track :ninja:

I have not heard any opnion on the coin I'd posted above.

Well... I guess it just adds up to the pile of uncertainty , doesn't it ?

 

 

I was just getting around to posting a "thanks" for the report about your coin. It is a nice piece by the way!

 

 

As for the 1875 25 penniä as it relates to the original question. I cannot say I am yet completely convinced that this coin is an intentional proof as opposed to a carefully stuck early strike. Of course it could be that the real question lies in what we consider to be a "proof" coin of that era.

 

To use an anology -What I might describe as being a quality brandy, some might be insistant that it is not merely that but a true cognac. ;) Now whether a barrel has been 'sneaked in' from outside and now has received the appellation of cognac -this I could not answer with authority.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for my english again.

 

I can not say nothing about scan of 25p1875 because I can not see nothing (scan quality is not so good).

 

"One of the most difficult parts of grading is distinguishing a "first strike" or proof-like" uncirculated (i.e. business strike) coin from a proof It is important to remember that "proof 'is not a grade; it is a method of manufacture." (from http://www.coingrading.com/isitproof1.html)

I think that we must speak about modern desciption of proof if coin grading as proof now: double strike, special dies (mint process different from business).

 

I think there two ways: we need know that proof technology was available or not by study history and we need check coins (it is proof or prooflike). If we try to go both ways we will me true on crossroad.

 

For all coins except 25p1872 and 1898.

 

first way (techology):

1) Ulhorn-Tonnelier mint machine was used at Helsinki mint 1864-1960.

Are yoy know anything from document about proof coinage before 1960 - NO.

2) If anybody can provide any info about proof medal before 1917 - it will be good info. I don't know anything about using the proof technology for medals at Helsinki mint.

3) As I know there not any record about special coinage for VIP - I think it is mean that this special coinage was only part of standard coinage. (If it was special coinage or coinage at medal dept. - must was a records about metals and special orders)

4) About Hess auctions and PP. I think that in 1913 PP and "polirovannaya prekrasnaya" was mean only polished surface, not any special mint technologies like double strike and other.

Could anybody provide list of finnish coins from Hess 1913 catalog?

5) Do you know any expert in finnish numismatic who know finnish proof? I asked one of finnish collector (his father printed first catalog of finnish coins on finnish lang. and first for finnish repulbic coins) - he don't know anything about proofs (except 25p1872 and 1898). Do you know any auction catalog on english or other (different from german) with word 'proof' before 2000? There was all proof coins before 2000? Only in German (hidden as PP) ?

 

 

Second way (coins):

1) there are very many prooflike coins in 1916-1917. I think it is mean that dies was well polished for standard business coinage.

2) Almost all coins graded as proof - 25p. Silver is a soft metal and no need big strength for get mirror surface.

3) many coins graded as proof was mint by broken dies (like 20m and copper 1p). I think that it was impossible provide this coins for VIP person.

4) WCO said about many proof coins for all years and denomination - May be all citizens of Finland was the VIP collectors? If special proof coinage for VIP collector was so standard - we must have many document about this.

5) Are there dies varieties for proof and standard coins - NO, as I know. There standard coins which also was minted by same broken dies.

 

It is only my opinion. Welcome to discuss.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many coins described as "Stgl. von polierter Platte" in catalog of Hess 1913.

Include trials like 2p both types and 2m1867.

As I know there are about 8-12 2p coins of each type and all of them is not proof now.

 

Also few silver coins 1864-65 described as "Stgl. von polierter Platte". But in this time all dies was prepared in Stockholm for business strike only.

 

25p (2pcs), 10p, 5p and 1p of 1875 described as "Stgl. u. s. scho:n"

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree we are going in circles. I guess what we need is concrete documents. It does seem that Helsinki Mint most likely had the ability to strike proof or proof-like coins but there is no concrete evidence ;) Maybe someone has to pull out their mint records.

 

Sisu, can we get you to do the honors? :ninja:

 

 

I will sort of do the honors. ;)

 

I have not checked the documents myself, and in fact there may not exist any documents to give us a solid answer. I contacted Mr. Talvio and informed him about the discussion in this thread and he was kind enough to reply to a couple of questions that I posed. The following is a rough translation:

 

My question: It is understood that some special coins were struck on order for honored people. Were these struck on the same year that appear on the coin? With special dies? Or normal dies, struck the same year as is on the coin?

 

Mr Talvio's response: Grand Duke Georgii Mikhailovich ordered from Finland's State Treasury new coins for his collection. I assume they were struck with normal yet unused dies such that the resulting coins were lustrous* strikes. The correct term could be "proof-like" -as today's proof techniques did not exist then. I consider it possible that the Mint of Finland produced, at the request of collectors, pieces with dates of previously struck years, but have found no documentation of this in the archives.

 

My question: One gentleman is of the opinion that "proof" quality coins can be found for almost all years (and even for all metals: copper, silver, gold) for the Grand Duchy period. Can this be so? And are they just "coincidence" (in other words, early strikes with new dies) or were these also struck to fill an order? Or perhaps so-called "novodells"? Or struck in later years with original dies?

 

Mr Talvio's response: As I said archival documention does not exist for this, but it seems that lustrous* strikes were made, at least beginning from the end of the 1800's, for all kinds of coins. It appears that for some coins there exist even some post-strikes as becomes evident in Hannu Männistö's writings in the FNS's journal 1/1992 and 4/1992.

 

 

*The Finnish Numismatic Society's (FNS) current auction catalogue translates the Finnish term kiiltolyönti as proof. However this grade classification in the catalogue is used only for modern proof coins and should not be confused with the strikes outside of this scope. I have used the term lustrous as that is a more accurate translation of the Finnish root word kiilto.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...