Jump to content
CoinPeople.com

Proof Finnish Imperial Coins


Recommended Posts

http://www.rustypennies.com/catalog/finnis...sian_coins.html

 

Denis, take a look on #210178. Mr. Basok published a very good paper about proofs. What are the properties of the proof etc.... Very nice paper. Don't you think that he is capable to see if this coin is proof or not proof?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 143
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I strongly believe this is a wrong assumption !

1. I do not think they were graded Proof-like

2. I do not think anyone sent them to NGC/PCGS and had them regraded from Proof-like to Proof

 

Where did you get that info?

With my pleasure,

 

 

It is wrong assumption. There were MS Prooflike Finnish coins and they were graded as such before and after 2000. There was DMPL Gold Finnish coin discassed on this same forum a few threads back:

 

http://www.coinpeople.com/Imperial-Finland...ssia-t9318.html

 

So DMPL's were always graded as such not just before 2000 since that coin was graded around year 2005. And then there were Proofs, they were always graded as Proofs and never as Prooflikes, neither before 2000 nor after.

 

dk_spb have too many logical flaws. Here is an example. I never said a single word about Russia but dk_spb built a logical line on his own and trying to represent his words as if they are mine. First using this text of mine ("I do not value much abilities of ANY and ALL Russian auction experts, even though I know many of them in person. They are good guys and good for business, but they have no idea how to GRADE coins".) he "concluded" that there are so many "stupid Russian numismatists" in Russia. Then he "logically" concluded, that the entire country must be stupid then. Dk-spb, remember, those are your words, not mine. :ninja:

 

And no matter, where Finnish mint "looked up" for technology or equipment, France, Belgium, Sweden... ALL those mints implemented Proof technology not later than middle of 19-th century and were minting Proofs! Yes, there are too MANY Proofs known that were made on mints of France, Belgium and Sweden so no one can dismiss this fact. And Finnish mint was able to make Proofs too, they had the technology and equipment for that.

 

WCO

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw one DPL 63 or 64 10 Markkaa 1913. It was offered to me for 600 something about a year ago. It had mirror-like fields, it still was graded as DPL, not PF.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My mother born only dk_spb by standard process.

You may think about non-standard process, about dk_spb-like. But your opinion is wrong. ;-)

 

 

Denis, what is non-standard process? "Пальцем деланый" что-ли?

Link to post
Share on other sites
So everytime when I have to open this catalog and see for example 10 Rouble 1903 and price for the Proof I will know that this is the price for prooflike.

<I don't know why Kazakov use proof as reduced form from prooflike

Well, if you do not know about it anything, maybe you should stop discussing this issue at all. If you do not know why then it's not an argument and only your assumptions.

Kazakov wrote in preface text in catalog that prices from "proof" column is a price for prooflike condition.

I don't know why and I can not discuss why.

But fact is no prices for proof coins (russian and finnish) in this catalog.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Denis, what is non-standard process? "Пальцем деланый" что-ли?

Нет, не стандартный процесс - это отличный от стандартного.

А стандартный - это как гражданин Непала - зачат непальцем и непалкой. :ninja:

Or then somebody got used dies from previous year, polished it by hand till lost details, strike few coins and said that is genuine coins. Like gold finnish proof from WCO.

 

When I said that prooflike coins became proof after 2000 I mean that:

1) I don't know any silver or copper finnish coins graded as proof or described as proof in auction catalogs or in any collections before 2000.

2) Where are many coins graded or/and described as proof after 2000. Somebody found many hoards?

Link to post
Share on other sites
...

Or then somebody got used dies from previous year, polished it by hand till lost details, strike few coins and said that is genuine coins. Like gold finnish proof from WCO.

...

 

You have no idea how in reality looked that gold coin. Your wrong assumptions are coming after looking at pictures and pictures are deceptive. Dies for that coin were not polished till loss of details, I said it 3 times already on different occasions but you still repeating. Stop saying it lucks details since it does not.

 

...

When I said that prooflike coins became proof after 2000 I mean that:

1) I don't know any silver or copper finnish coins graded as proof or described as proof in auction catalogs or in any collections before 2000.

2) Where are many coins graded or/and described as proof after 2000. Somebody found many hoards?

...

 

1. If you don't know something does not mean that no one knows something. What catalogs before 2000 did you look at that have at least a dozen Finnish coins in them?

 

2. Not many, they are rare coins. Over the years I can encounter may be 40-50 sold within the last 6-7 years worldwide excluding Russia and Finland.

 

WCO

Link to post
Share on other sites
Нет, не стандартный процесс - это отличный от стандартного.

А стандартный - это как гражданин Непала - зачат непальцем и непалкой. :ninja:

Or then somebody got used dies from previous year, polished it by hand till lost details, strike few coins and said that is genuine coins. Like gold finnish proof from WCO.

 

When I said that prooflike coins became proof after 2000 I mean that:

1) I don't know any silver or copper finnish coins graded as proof or described as proof in auction catalogs or in any collections before 2000.

2) Where are many coins graded or/and described as proof after 2000. Somebody found many hoards?

 

 

We all waiting from you a TRANSLATION of the TERM "PROOFLIKE". I also would like to hear the translation from Mr. Kazakov and why he "REDUCED PROOFLIKE TO PROOF". If you do not know about it anything, IT IS NOT AN ARGUMENT TO PROVE YOUR POINT AND PLEASE STOP TO REFER TO IT.

Have a nice day, Denis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kazakov wrote in preface text in catalog that prices from "proof" column is a price for prooflike condition.

I don't know why and I can not discuss why.

But fact is no prices for proof coins (russian and finnish) in this catalog.

 

I believe this is another wrong assumption. I do not personally believe that Mr Kazakov intended Proof prices for Proof-like coins in his book. Especially, I'm not satisfied with the fact that this your personal opinion can mislead other readers.

 

Trully yours,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I have not time today. I will write about all other questions tomorrow.

 

 

We all waiting from you a TRANSLATION of the TERM "PROOFLIKE".

prooflike=пруфлайк; proof=пруф

I don't understand that you want. Sorry.

Please give me example: translate to russian word "coin"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, I have not time today. I will write about all other questions tomorrow.

prooflike=пруфлайк; proof=пруф

I don't understand that you want. Sorry.

Please give me example: translate to russian word "coin"

 

With my pleasure: Монета.

 

It seems to me that you do not understand the meaning of "prooflike" because you did not translate it correctly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
With my pleasure: Монета.

 

It seems to me that you do not understand the meaning of "prooflike" because you did not translate it correctly.

 

Имеется в виду "толковое значение". Coin (монета) - согласно словарю Ожегова - металлический денежный знак.

 

And we want to hear explanation how you (dk_spb) understand meaning of word Prooflike (Пруфлайк)?

 

WCO

Link to post
Share on other sites
With my pleasure: Монета.

Yes, usually we use the roman word (roman name) "moneta" when speak about "coin".

But this is not translation. We have not russian word for "coin" and I don't know any trouble about this.

Also we use non-rusian words proof, jeton, prooflike, nominal and many other (which mean the same meaning as in origin language).

 

About meaning:

Prooflike - first strike coins minted by standard business process which have a mirror surface.

 

proof - made by special process: specially made planchets, specially made and specially polished dies, special strike (greater pressure and few times) - all not needed but usuall.

 

And difference between proof and prooflike is subjective without knowledge how this coin was minted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
...And difference between proof and prooflike is subjective without knowledge how this coin was minted.

 

I would not agree with this statement.

 

It is not subjective ! There are some distinctive differences between Proof and Business strike coins (letters' angle to the fields, edges, etc.). In 99.99% cases you do not have to know the "pedigree" of a coin to tell that the coin is Proof or not.

 

 

Best regards,

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would not agree with this statement. It is not subjective !

 

It is subjective. It is not only my opinion.

 

"Like grading, the attribution, "proof," is at least partially subjective."

© James Halperin, Co-founder of Heritage Rare Coin Galleries, and author of How to Grade U.S. Coins, The Truth Machine, and The First Immortal

(http://www.coingrading.com/isitproof1.html)

 

In 99.99% cases

May be not 99.99%? May be 99.95% or 92.35% ? :ninja:

 

1) you have not full 100% assurance that coins was graded as proof is a proofs

2) We have 99.99% assurance that proofs was not minted in Finland.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is subjective. It is not only my opinion.

 

"Like grading, the attribution, "proof," is at least partially subjective."

© James Halperin, Co-founder of Heritage Rare Coin Galleries, and author of How to Grade U.S. Coins, The Truth Machine, and The First Immortal

(http://www.coingrading.com/isitproof1.html)

May be not 99.99%? May be 99.95% or 92.35% ? :ninja:

 

1) you have not full 100% assurance that coins was graded as proof is a proofs

2) We have 99.99% assurance that proofs was not minted in Finland.

 

<1) you have not full 100% assurance that coins was graded as proof is a proofs

 

I can say the same thing about your statement. You do not have even 99.99% assurance that proof coins was NOT minted in Finland. It's just your words and you can't prove them.

 

<2) We have 99.99% assurance that proofs was not minted in Finland.

 

Who WE? Are you representing somebody? If this is some russian-finnish society, I can qoute one person: "членство в Финском Нумизматическом Обществе это как членсто в Областном Пиздохосранском Кружке любителей монет и жевательной резинки"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Denis,

 

Did you have even once in your hand the slab with Finnish coin graded as PF? Did you examine it under let's say microscope? If you do, let's see the pictures of this coin and your arguments why you are think that it's not a PF. If you do not, then your arguments look like this: "Guys, I did not see such coins in my life and there are no records of these coins in Finnish Mint, so they do not exist". I can say you one thing, before making such statement you have to prove that the coin which was graded by NGC or PCGS as PF is not PF and to do this you have to have it. Do you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Who WE? Are you representing somebody? If this is some russian-finnish society, I can qoute one person: "членство в Финском Нумизматическом Обществе это как членсто в Областном Пиздохосранском Кружке любителей монет и жевательной резинки"

Если я мешаю кому-то наябывать клиентов, втюхивая несуществующий пруф, то это не повод пиздеть не по делу.

А если уж охота попиздеть, то назовите себя и ту "one person", которой по существу сказать нечего, а "пруфов" еще продал недостаточно для того чтобы заплатить психоаналитикам чтобы поумерили ему желание пиздеть.

Link to post
Share on other sites
... "членство в Финском Нумизматическом Обществе это как членсто в Областном Пиздохосранском Кружке любителей монет и жевательной резинки"

 

:ninja: Good one!

 

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

 

Jim Halperin said the following: "Learn how to weigh these factors together. Combined with your own experience from looking at coins, you should be able to tell most proofs from most business strikes. Like grading, the attribution, "proof," is at least partially subjective. Experts often disagree about whether a coin was struck as a proof. If you have any doubt, it is best not to buy the coin unless you know your dealer and he is willing to guarantee, in writing, that the coin you are purchasing is indeed a proof. Otherwise, reconsider whether or not you would wish to own a coin which experts may never unanimously attribute as a proof".

 

And before that he explained how to distinguish Proof or not, factors to distinguish, etc. By saying that "attribution as a Proof is partially subjective" he wanted to say that in some cases it is not possible to say if a coin was minted as a Proof or as Business Strike. And I can add that those cases are when a Proof coin has signs of circulation beyond certain point, corrosion, contamination or heavy cleaning that changed appearance of a coin, i.e. not possible to see anything. And for GEM MS or GEM Proof coin it is ALWAYS possible to tell what technology made a coin. (just dk_spb did not know that).

 

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

 

dk_spb, please

 

1. tell what catalogs with at least a few Finnish coins in it published before 2000 you inspected?

2. answer if you ever seen any copper or silver Finnish coins graded as Proof?

3. answer if you believe that Russian coins and Finnish coins on MiM auction with description "Сохранность полированная" are minted on a similar manner?

 

 

 

Best regards,

WCO

Link to post
Share on other sites
You have no idea how in reality looked that gold coin. Your wrong assumptions are coming after looking at pictures and pictures are deceptive. Dies for that coin were not polished till loss of details, I said it 3 times already on different occasions but you still repeating. Stop saying it lucks details since it does not.
0003000970_1.jpg

Please tell me where is grid from bottom part of shield?I think it is more easiest that grade proof or prooflike by pictures of coin.

1. If you don't know something does not mean that no one knows something. What catalogs before 2000 did you look at that have at least a dozen Finnish coins in them?
There are many auction catalogs with hundreds of finnish coins (like Holmasto, Ekman, SNY).I think that this auctions well known for specialist in finnish coins.
Link to post
Share on other sites
By saying that "attribution as a Proof is partially subjective" he wanted to say

Thanks, I already have example how you "translate" letter from Tuukka Talvio.

I don't need another.

I think you next message will be dk_spb wanted to say ....

Link to post
Share on other sites
...

Please tell me where is grid from bottom part of shield?

...

 

Answering you for the fifth time I can say that detail on the picture is lost due to reflective fields of the coin, bright light used and very thin lines of greed. Just surroundings were much brighter and you can't see the grid. But it's there on the coin when you see it in person. I hope five times will be enough for you to stop saying noncence? :ninja:

 

...

There are many auction catalogs with hundreds of finnish coins (like Holmasto, Ekman, SNY).

I think that this auctions well known for specialist in finnish coins.

...

 

I asked you about catalogs that you personally looked at that were printed OUTSIDE of Finland (since we already know what Finnish people are saying). Any catalogs from Great Britain, Germany, USA?

 

Regards,

WCO

Link to post
Share on other sites
bright light used and very thin lines of greed.

Yes, of course, grid at top of shield is not so thin

:ninja:

 

I asked you about catalogs that you personally looked at that were printed OUTSIDE of Finland

I think you always win in poker.

You asked "What catalogs before 2000 did you look at that have at least a dozen Finnish coins in them?"

Where is any words about outside Finland?

If I will say about russian or german catalog, you will say that you asked about catalog printed outside Germany and Russia.

 

May be you think that catalog printed in Italy better for english coins that catalog printed in England?

And better way to get info about polish coins - read catalog printed at Fiji?

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
...

You asked "What catalogs before 2000 did you look at that have at least a dozen Finnish coins in them?"

Where is any words about outside Finland?

If I will say about russian or german catalog, you will say that you asked about catalog printed outside Germany and Russia.

 

 

Again just tell what German or English or US catalogs before 2000 did you look at that have at least a few Finnish coins in them?

 

WCO

Link to post
Share on other sites
...

May be you think that catalog printed in Italy better for english coins that catalog printed in England?

And better way to get info about polish coins - read catalog printed at Fiji?

:ninja:

 

My friend, better way to learn something is to find the right books, no matter where they were printed in Fiji or on the moon. And there is still so little knowledge about coins in Russia and Finland that for decades Irving Goodman catalogue printed in United States was the best reference for Russian coins.

 

For now I know that you never handled such coins and you never read about such coins. How then you can discass the issue?

 

It was cool ... перефразируя слова Жванецкого "обсуждать вкус устриц с теми, кто их не ел". ;)

 

WCO

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

×
×
  • Create New...