Jump to content
CoinPeople.com

Original MintPackaging


HuliganRS
 Share

Recommended Posts

Trust me, that will prove to be extremely difficult.

 

Some of the more notoriously expensive cellophane sets that were on ebay are like the 1964, 1970, 1975 mint set. Those easily went over the 200 dollar mark.

 

There are two unusual Soviet sets that I have not found any infomation about.

 

916086.jpg

 

917174.jpg

 

Can never tell if these are official sets or made by some third party companies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trust me, that will prove to be extremely difficult.

 

Some of the more notoriously expensive cellophane sets that were on ebay are like the 1964, 1970, 1975 mint set. Those easily went over the 200 dollar mark.

 

There are two unusual Soviet sets that I have not found any infomation about.

 

916086.jpg

 

917174.jpg

 

Can never tell if these are official sets or made by some third party companies.

 

These packages are pretty modern (actually, the coins are not that old as well, aren't they ? :-)

Anyway, these packages were made several years after the original mint date for collectors and tourists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gxseries,

 

That 1961 set you have. Most "expert sources" in Russia are saying that there were no such a set in a box and most likely this box was made outside of Russia (US most likely). How it appears for you, is this box authentic?

 

Also in 1957 (for sure) and most likely in 1961 sets in cardboard (Bank of foreign trade) denominations starting from 10 Kopecks and higher have somewhat different look. Eather alloy was somewhat different from the one used for coins intended for circulation or they were plated with some other metal. How about coins in your set. Do they look different from other business strikes of same year?

 

WCO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also in 1957 (for sure) and most likely in 1961 sets in cardboard (Bank of foreign trade) denominations starting from 10 Kopecks and higher have somewhat different look. Eather alloy was somewhat different from the one used for coins intended for circulation or they were plated with some other metal. How about coins in your set. Do they look different from other business strikes of same year?

 

WCO

 

 

Hello WCO,

 

 

I know very little about Soviet coins, having concentrated my collecting attention on the Imperial issues.

 

This is the first I have heard of the Bank for Foreign Trade sets being different from the regular issue coins. The only official Soviet coin set I have is a BFT set of the 1957 5, 10, 15 & 20 kopeks coins which says they were "withdrawn from circulation since January 1, 1961". I bought the set long ago for a dollar or two and had the sense at the time that the dealer was very happy to find someone who would pay anything at all for them. It seems things have changed since then.

 

The coins seem to be decent unc examples and I've never really compared them with other 1957 coins. I just assumed that they were unreleased production coins packed into the cardboard holder for sale to tourists.

 

What are the differences in the BFT sets that you see as compared to the 1957 coins actually made & released for circulation?

 

Thank you for any answer which you might care to offer. :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello WCO,

I know very little about Soviet coins, having concentrated my collecting attention on the Imperial issues.

 

This is the first I have heard of the Bank for Foreign Trade sets being different from the regular issue coins. The only official Soviet coin set I have is a BFT set of the 1957 5, 10, 15 & 20 kopeks coins which says they were "withdrawn from circulation since January 1, 1961". I bought the set long ago for a dollar or two and had the sense at the time that the dealer was very happy to find someone who would pay anything at all for them. It seems things have changed since then.

 

The coins seem to be decent unc examples and I've never really compared them with other 1957 coins. I just assumed that they were unreleased production coins packed into the cardboard holder for sale to tourists.

 

What are the differences in the BFT sets that you see as compared to the 1957 coins actually made & released for circulation?

 

Thank you for any answer which you might care to offer. :ninja:

 

 

If you just put the two coins side by side, one from a set and another made for circulation you will immediately see it.

 

Here is a picture where on the bottom is 1957 20 Kopecks from a set and regular 10 Kopecks of 1957. I hope you see how different they are. 20 Kopecks is extremely bright and reflective, different in color.

 

http://i01.expertcollector.com/uploads/0003001192_1.jpg

 

WCO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you just put the two coins side by side, one from a set and another made for circulation you will immediately see it.

 

Here is a picture where on the bottom is 1957 20 Kopecks from a set and regular 10 Kopecks of 1957. I hope you see how different they are. 20 Kopecks is extremely bright and reflective, different in color.

 

http://i01.expertcollector.com/uploads/0003001192_1.jpg

 

WCO

 

OK, thank you. From the picture, the 10 kopecks looks more frosty while the 20 kopecks looks more brilliant. I don't have any other 1957 coins to compare with my 1957 BFT set.

 

What do you think makes the difference? Were the coins struck from different dies or blanks to get higher quality for the BFT sets? The 10, 15 & 20 kopecks coins in my set do not look like proofs, although they might be a little bit more sharply struck than normal and have a very light, faint blue toning. The 5 kopecks is also well-struck and has some reddish peripheral toning. Otherwise, the coins just look like nice unc examples to me (but I don't know the Soviet issues very well and might be wrong).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, thank you. From the picture, the 10 kopecks looks more frosty while the 20 kopecks looks more brilliant. I don't have any other 1957 coins to compare with my 1957 BFT set.

 

What do you think makes the difference? Were the coins struck from different dies or blanks to get higher quality for the BFT sets? The 10, 15 & 20 kopecks coins in my set do not look like proofs, although they might be a little bit more sharply struck than normal and have a very light, faint blue toning. The 5 kopecks is also well-struck and has some reddish peripheral toning. Otherwise, the coins just look like nice unc examples to me (but I don't know the Soviet issues very well and might be wrong).

 

Most likely "Russian sources" are right and coins in 1957 and 1961 sets were plated. Have no idea with what metal though. The other possibility that I do not dismiss is that they are made in a different alloy. It would be interesting to analyse alloy and surfaces of coins from sets and circulation. Coins in sets are not Proofs indeed, they also often have bagmarks. They are not that much more of higher quality, just different.

 

WCO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most likely "Russian sources" are right and coins in 1957 and 1961 sets were plated. Have no idea with what metal though. The other possibility that I do not dismiss is that they are made in a different alloy. It would be interesting to analyse alloy and surfaces of coins from sets and circulation. Coins in sets are Proofs indeed, they also often have bagmarks. They are not that much more of higher quality, just different.

 

WCO

 

 

Are weights the same? If plated, or a different alloy, then the weights might be different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...