Oldman Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 Exactly what I said 2 pages ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKB Posted February 15, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 2 BKB: what is the edge on your 1849? Is it polished or matte? That is a problem They are slabbed. I bought them slabbed. Cannot see through rubber, damn it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldman Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 That is a problem They are slabbed. I bought them slabbed. Cannot see through rubber, damn it... Just break it! The bottom line: we buy coins not slabs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 I agree with the Oldman. Crack 'er open! A good pair of Lobster pliers should do the job! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCO Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 Well,as I suspected too many words about nothing. .... Thank you my friend, expected only something like this from you. Those are your words: ... I think a 'pattern', 'proof', 'trial mintage' and 'novodel' are plenty enough to describe whatever coin you imagine... "Смешались в кучу кони, люди..." What a mix of words. How about "Trial mintage" of a "Proof" "Novodel" of a well known "Pattern" was completed. What you said is Abracadabra. And may be you are kind of numismatic Эллочка людоедка with just 4 words in your numismatic lexicon, but there are much more words than that to describe coins, technologies that made them, their quality and eye appeal. It is just year or two since you yourself (still in the "dark ages" of numismatic knowledge, but in indefinite denial of this fact) learned that Proof - is not a quality of a coin, but technology used to strike one. Now you know, there were more than two different... Have a good day. WCO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grivna1726 Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 That is a problem They are slabbed. I bought them slabbed. Cannot see through rubber, damn it... I think PCGS is expert in US coins. I don't know how much PCGS knows about Russian coins, especially when it comes to things that specialist Russian collectors do not clearly understand. I think maybe they look at a Russian coin and say "If this was a US coin, would I call it a proof, specimen or business strike? Would it be 64 or 65 if it was a US coin?" So, is it really so important what PCGS calls it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldman Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 Thank you my friend, expected only something like this from you. Those are your words: "Смешались в кучу кони, люди..." What a mix of words. How about "Trial mintage" of a "Proof" "Novodel" of a well known "Pattern" was completed. What you said is Abracadabra. And may be you are kind of numismatic Эллочка людоедка with just 4 words in your numismatic lexicon, but there are much more words than that to describe coins, technologies that made them, their quality and eye appeal. It is just year or two since you yourself (still in the "dark ages" of numismatic knowledge, but in indefinite denial of this fact) learned that Proof - is not a quality of a coin, but technology used to strike one. Now you know, there were more than two different... Have a good day. WCO Dear WCO, I do not think this message is polite. It is not my business , of course, but I would avoid these types of messages since we are all here to enjoy our passion - coin collecting. Best regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timofei Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 What you said is Abracadabra............ And may be you are kind of numismatic Эллочка людоедка with just 4 words in your numismatic lexicon.................................... It is just year or two since you yourself (still in the "dark ages" of numismatic knowledge, but in indefinite denial of this fact) learned that Proof - is not a quality Whoa, you are really angry now, why is that, Ilya, why? You scare me sometimes, my enlightened friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHV Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 Dear WCO, I do not think this message is polite. It is not my business , of course, but I would avoid these types of messages since we are all here to enjoy our passion - coin collecting. Best regards, Hi I read all.... And I see that WCO gave very clear explanation about it. And I see some people doesn`t know what they talking about and I agree with WCO's "Scare" messegaes. BTW didn`t see better than his answer. P.S. nice topic! BKB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKB Posted February 15, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 Hi I read all.... And I see that WCO gave very clear explanation about it. And I see some people doesn`t know what they talking about and I agree with WCO's "Scare" messegaes. BTW didn`t see better than his answer. P.S. nice topic! BKB GHV, If you can understand the difference between proof, MS, and specimen strikes, as it applies to Russian numismatics, from WCO answers, -- can you please provide a guideline for distinguishing them? A simple chart of tell-tale signs will do. I still have no idea what the difference is. Personally, I am unable to tell whether a screw press or a regular press was used by just looking at the coin with low relief. Can you? What are the distinguishing features. By the way, it is not clear whether all pattern coins were also produced with a screw press or not. Same goes for proofs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldman Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 GHV, If you can understand the difference between proof, MS, and specimen strikes, as it applies to Russian numismatics, from WCO answers, -- can you please provide a guideline for distinguishing them? A simple chart of tell-tale signs will do. I still have no idea what the difference is. Personally, I am unable to tell whether a screw press or a regular press was used by just looking at the coin with low relief. Can you? What are the distinguishing features. By the way, it is not clear whether all pattern coins were also produced with a screw press or not. Same goes for proofs. Thanks BKB ! At a moment , I was not sure if I was okay reading GHV's posting. He/she praises Mr WCO, that's okay with me too ; but there was NO REAL answer posted. Just regular ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCO Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 BKB, Let me answer you. There is no point in asking someone else if you do not understand what I am saying. If you want the right answers you may want to ask the right questions. Found another nice article on screw press: http://gamma-center.ru/_domains_/sever/news5.html 1. Again does not matter what press struck a coin, screw, mechanical or hydraulic. Looking at a coin you in some cases can say what it was and in most cases you can't. If a coin has weakness in strike, details are weakly struck, fields under magnification look wavy then it is most likely not a Specimen strike or Proof, and you know what press was used to strike this kind on the spot. 2. There is no single factor that allows to tell: "This is Proof" or "This is Specimen Strike". But first read this: http://www.coingrading.com/isitproof1.html Also I want to stress text: "... therefore, consider the following factors in tandem with each other, for no single factor is enough to make a conclusive decision". As much as it true for Proofs the same it is true for Specimen Strikes. But if on a coin you see several features that look like it was Specimen Strike, then it probably was. I do not know how I can be clearer on this issue than that. WCO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHV Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 Thanks BKB ! At a moment , I was not sure if I was okay reading GHV's posting. He/she praises Mr WCO, that's okay with me too but there was REAL answer posted. Just regular ... My Dear Old-man First I'm not praised WCO's answer. And even if So, than I don`t think I should "praised" "regular answer" that you talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldman Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 My Dear Old-man First I'm not praised WCO's answer. And even if So, than I don`t think I should "praised" "regular answer" that you talking about. Have no problem with that at all ......if I only understood what you're talking about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHV Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 Have no problem with that at all ......if I only understood what you're talking about I'm talking about live in the Planet MARS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKB Posted February 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 If a coin has weakness in strike, details are weakly struck, fields under magnification look wavy then it is most likely not a Specimen strike or Proof, and you know what press was used to strike this kind on the spot. WCO Finally, I think we are getting places... However, it was stated about a proof coin. Now, do you equate Proof to Specimen strike? It seems that the article you provided deals exclusively with Proofs. Now, you say that the same is true for Specimens? Does it mean that Specimen = Proof? What about Novodel Proofs? I am not sure what is the right queston to ask... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCO Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 Finally, I think we are getting places... However, it was stated about a proof coin. Now, do you equate Proof to Specimen strike? It seems that the article you provided deals exclusively with Proofs. Now, you say that the same is true for Specimens? Does it mean that Specimen = Proof? What about Novodel Proofs? I am not sure what is the right queston to ask... BKB, Do you see that the two 1849 coins that you have look somewhat differently? Please describe exactly how your two 1849 coins are different? Consider relief, strike, surfaces, preparation of planchets, quality of details. Use magnification. Also answer what on your opinion is different in preparation of dies for those two coins, like degree of polishing, sharper details, etc. WCO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKB Posted February 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 BKB, I will ask you the right question. Do you see that the two 1849 coins that you have look somewhat differently? Please describe exactly how your two 1849 coins are different? Consider relief, strike, surfaces, preparation of planchets, quality of details. Use magnification. WCO All right, let us play this game :-) 1. First coin is sharper -- details are better defined. It appears that the planchette was polished, because the top surface of the letters seems somewhat polished. Color is differed -- bronze red, whish, according to some opinions signifies an original. 2. Second coin is brown. The planchette was probably rough, as it is reflected by top surface of letters. Details are less defined. Missing dot in SPB (not even a trace under huge magnification) Field is at least PL, which shows that the die was probably polished. Cannot say anything about the strike -- do not remember if single or multiple strikes. Appear to be identical dies with the exception of the missing dot. Now, here is the third coin. You will se that the monogram side seems identical to the first 2 coins, while the other side is made with a new-cut die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCO Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 Your Specimen coin. Is its look more close to a Proof or to MS coins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKB Posted February 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 Your Specimen coin. Is its look more close to a Proof or to MS coins? Specimen is coin number 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCO Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 Specimen is coin number 1. You posted pictures of two coins on page 1. Which one of them is Specimen? You know what, instead of coin #1 and coin #2 use words Specimen and Proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKB Posted February 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 You posted pictures of two coins on page 1. Which one of them is Specimen? The first one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCO Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 The first one. Please re-write this text of yours using instead of words "First coin" and "Second coin" words "Specimen" and "Proof". 1. First coin is sharper -- details are better defined. It appears that the planchette was polished, because the top surface of the letters seems somewhat polished. Color is differed -- bronze red, whish, according to some opinions signifies an original. 2. Second coin is brown. The planchette was probably rough, as it is reflected by top surface of letters. Details are less defined. Missing dot in SPB (not even a trace under huge magnification) Field is at least PL, which shows that the die was probably polished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKB Posted February 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 1. Proof is sharper -- details are better defined. It appears that the planchette was polished, because the top surface of the letters seems somewhat polished. Color is differed -- bronze red, whish, according to some opinions signifies an original. 2. Specimen is brown. The planchette was probably rough, as it is reflected by top surface of letters. Details are less defined. Missing dot in SPB (not even a trace under huge magnification) Field is at least PL, which shows that the die was probably polished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCO Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 1. Proof is sharper -- details are better defined. It appears that the planchette was polished, because the top surface of the letters seems somewhat polished. Color is differed -- bronze red, whish, according to some opinions signifies an original. 2. Specimen is brown. The planchette was probably rough, as it is reflected by top surface of letters. Details are less defined. Missing dot in SPB (not even a trace under huge magnification) Field is at least PL, which shows that the die was probably polished. OK, so from your observations looks as: 1. For striking of Proofs planshets had to be polished, and Specimens not necessarily were struck on polished planshets. 2. Also details, Proofs had exceptional details due not to only exceptional preparation of dies, but also due to two or more blows of a press that struck them and Specimens could have still sharp details but slightly off, even somewhat weaker strike on highest points of relief may be present. 3. How about quality of surfaces, where seems to be more smoother (better polished) surface? I think that your Proof have smoother surfaces than Specimen. However, both may sometimes exibit extensive die polishing. Am I right here explaining your observations? WCO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.