bobh Posted March 10, 2007 Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 This coin: 1787-TM 10 kopeek (Gorny & Mosch auction 157 last week) was sold for EUR 10,500 + 15% + VAT at the recent GM auction. It is supposedly Bitkin 1281. Please refer to the scans below, compare them with the auction pictures, and tell me that you still believe it is a genuine coin. I can see nothing wrong with the reverse, except that the end of the curl on the bottom of the digit "1" is quite thick in the auction pictures, but much smaller in the Bitkin reference. However, the obverse of the auction does't match either of the two obverse images in Bitkin at all. (1) Bitkin 1279, 1280 and 1281 (2) Goodman sale, lot 586 (Bitkin 1279) (3) Rylov-Sobolin (Bitkin 1281) (4) Uzdenikov 4354 (Bitkin 1281) Interestingly enough, both Rylov-Sobolin and Uzdenikov give images of what is apparently Bitkin 1281. The coin sold at the Goodman auction is listed in Bitkin at the right under 1279; however, the auction catalog for the Goodman sale refers to this as a Novodel. It seems that Bitkin doesn't list it as such. Maybe someone else has other scans to share (Grand Duke / Diakov / ... ???). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kisenish Posted March 10, 2007 Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 Bob, it was enough to see this coin, there is no need to compare. People were grinning there as some guys fought a battle for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobh Posted March 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 Bob, it was enough to see this coin, there is no need to compare. People were grinning there as some guys fought a battle for it. Thanks, Alexey. However, this isn't eBay, and the pictures of the GM auction lots are quite good. I'm very surprised that this lot wasn't withdrawn if it is such an obvious fake! (after all, they have their reputation to defend). Didn't anyone warn them? I suppose this coin now has a pedigree ... "ex GM 157" ... therefore, it must certainly be authentic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobh Posted March 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2007 I suppose this coin now has a pedigree ... "ex GM 157" ... therefore, it must certainly be authentic! Actually, this is no laughing matter. Doesn't anyone else think it is shocking that a major auction venue like Gorny & Mosch would let a fake coin like this one slip through? I know that it happens with other auction houses. However, this coin is so rare (at least the genuine item is! ) that one should automatically take the greatest precautions. I am tempted to send them a message and include a link to this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobh Posted March 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2007 I can see nothing wrong with the reverse, except that the end of the curl on the bottom of the digit "1" is quite thick in the auction pictures, but much smaller in the Bitkin reference.In the meantime, I have found other rather obvious differences in the reverse ... most notably the spacing between the dots is much too regular in the fake coin. Also, the bottom of the digit "1" (right-hand side) has a different shape: the fake coin's "1" is more tapered, whereas the genuine coin's "1" is rather blunt. (...the silence here is deafening...doesn't anyone else care???) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted March 11, 2007 Report Share Posted March 11, 2007 I would be curious to hear the explanation, if any, from Gorny et al. I dont think i have ever seen any retraction, explanation, etc for this type of situation. It would be too damaging to their reputation, for word of this to spread beyond those who are the wiser. These auction houses rely on their reputation for their success. But would covering up such an error be worse that admitting it? that is the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobh Posted March 12, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 Здравствуй, белка! Большое спасибо Тебе за ответ! I would be curious to hear the explanation, if any, from Gorny et al.Me, too! (as I am sure the rest of us would be...) I dont think I have ever seen any retraction, explanation, etc. for this type of situation. It would be too damaging to their reputation, for word of this to spread beyond those who are the wiser. These auction houses rely on their reputation for their success. But would covering up such an error be worse that admitting it? that is the question.Yep ... however, I am not sure that anyone has yet "posed the question" to Messieurs G & M et al. And that is what surprises me! I'm fairly new at collecting Russian coins ... just started about 2 years ago (+ or -). Why should I be the one to break the news? Maybe there is no news to break -- after all, every catalog has its deficits. Maybe this is one of them ... maybe there is yet another variety or Novodel? Whatever justification there might be, would be welcome. I still have high hopes that some of the expert numismatists here will contribute. I hate being the bearer of bad news! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobh Posted March 14, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 Well, I finally sent them an email this morning. Links to my scans were included, but none to this forum. I tried to be very polite. Basically, I just voiced my concerns and said, being a hobby collector, that I was surprised that what appeared to me to be a counterfeit coin was actually sold for EUR 10,500, and I requested links to additional reference material which might indicate that this coin could be genuine. Now comes the big wait! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.