WCO Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 I understood everything except "мудозвоны" ... it's not in any of my dictionaries, either ... Bad word, very bad. Not a dictionary word. Basok seemed to be very pissed of to see so many "specialists" in one place. WCO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RARENUM Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 deleted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheburgen Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 The only problem is he is changing his mind everyday. Personally, I still think that the first coin is a fake. "Я подозреваю что монета которую он купил у Вальтера Аугзбургера фуфло". He probably remembers this phrase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akdrv Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 I guess that being an arrogant ass works well as a business strategy for Basok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCO Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 The only problem is he is changing his mind everyday. Personally, I still think that the first coin is a fake. "Я подозреваю что монета которую он купил у Вальтера Аугзбургера фуфло". He probably remembers this phrase. Cheburgen, say hello to ТимВик on that forum from me! Say him I confirm his status, теперь он мальчик-колокольчик! WCO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCO Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 I guess that being an arrogant ass works well as a business strategy for Basok. This is the best PR possible in Russia. WCO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheburgen Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 Cheburgen, say hello to ТимВик on that forum from me! Say him I confirm his status, теперь он мальчик-колокольчик! WCO I will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 you just need to use a numismatic dictionary.... see attached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RARENUM Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 you just need to use a numismatic dictionary.... see attached. Thank you,was helpfull attachment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKB Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 I tend to agree with the statement that it is often hard to say whether the coin is false or genuine simply from looking at the pictures of the coin (or its edge, for that matter) That is why I have no opinion as to the second coin. However, I believe that the case of the first coin is pretty clear (to me). The first coin has a large diebreak. It was also provided by the owner that the coin is a Proof (not prooflike, Unc, etc.) Now, Proof issue was very special. It was done on a screw press, or medallic press. It was made utilizing multiple "strikes" (I use this word for lack of a better one). Such was done to achieve perfection. Now, what kind of perfection is achieved by striking the coin using a broken die?! A coin like this would never pass the control. Remember what happened to the Family roubles struck with a broken die? But, what do we see? We see a proof coin struck with a die that has a pretty advanced die break. I, personally, do not believe in proofs made with a broken die. In my opinion, it can only be a novodel or a fake. Is it easy to crack a die on a screw press, where there is no striking involved, but only slow gradual pressure? It is probably possible if a great number of coins is made with the same die. However, the Proof issue of this coin was pretty small, which is indicated by the rarity of Proofs. Then, why would a die be broken from a relatively short work cycle? And, why would a damaged Proof coin leave the mint? On top of it all, I have never seen an original Proof commemorative coin with a die break. The above leads me to believe that the Proof coin is a fake. The second (Unc.) coin looks ok. But, if Mr. Basok's logic is used, then I must believe that the other coin is also fake, because the edges are identical, and I strongly beleave that the Proof coin is a fake. However, any serious metal shop can copy that edge perfectly. Thus, I cannot say anything as to the second coin. P.S. Does the column on the Proof look a bit wider than it should be? Or is it my eyes failing me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheburgen Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 I tend to agree with the statement that it is often hard to say whether the coin is false or genuine simply from looking at the pictures of the coin (or its edge, for that matter) That is why I have no opinion as to the second coin. However, I believe that the case of the first coin is pretty clear (to me). The first coin has a large diebreak. It was also provided by the owner that the coin is a Proof (not prooflike, Unc, etc.) Now, Proof issue was very special. It was done on a screw press, or medallic press. It was made utilizing multiple "strikes" (I use this word for lack of a better one). Such was done to achieve perfection. Now, what kind of perfection is achieved by striking the coin using a broken die?! A coin like this would never pass the control. Remember what happened to the Family roubles struck with a broken die? But, what do we see? We see a proof coin struck with a die that has a pretty advanced die break. I, personally, do not believe in proofs made with a broken die. In my opinion, it can only be a novodel or a fake. Is it easy to crack a die on a screw press, where there is no striking involved, but only slow gradual pressure? It is probably possible if a great number of coins is made with the same die. However, the Proof issue of this coin was pretty small, which is indicated by the rarity of Proofs. Then, why would a die be broken from a relatively short work cycle? And, why would a damaged Proof coin leave the mint? On top of it all, I have never seen an original Proof commemorative coin with a die break. The above leads me to believe that the Proof coin is a fake. The second (Unc.) coin looks ok. But, if Mr. Basok's logic is used, then I must believe that the other coin is also fake, because the edges are identical, and I strongly beleave that the Proof coin is a fake. However, any serious metal shop can copy that edge perfectly. Thus, I cannot say anything as to the second coin. P.S. Does the column on the Proof look a bit wider than it should be? Or is it my eyes failing me... I was trying to rise the same issue on Staraya Moneta. The issue about proof with die break. Since Basok is saying that both coins are genuine that automatically means we have a proof with die break. Just one question. How this piece is survived if proof coin supposed to be perfect and you should also think about the purpose of striking proofs. I personally asked Mr. Basok did he see in his life even once a proof with a die break and he said no. Ok, now according to him it's possible to have such coin. Have a good night. P.S I also strongly believe that it's not a novodel either considering the purpose of striking novodels. So what we have here unique (sorry not unique the guy showed another such coin sold so it makes them 2) proof with die break which was not described anywhere in the literature and not seen by everybody till this moment or just a simple fake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheburgen Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 Basok seemed to be very pissed of to see so many "specialists" in one place. WCO You probably forget what he used to say about YOU as a "specialist". It's OK. People have a tendency to forget such things. Just let me know if you need a little reminder so I can find his posts about you and publish them here so we all can enjoy the beatiful russian language with english translation of course. Then I think we all can use this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grivna1726 Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 Ilya, gimme your opinion about these 2 edges. Thanks. http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/6995/1519lf1.jpg http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/9844/2920wm1.jpg This edge looks suspicious to me. The reeding is poorly defined and tapers toward the edge. In the valleys between the reeding, there are small blems visible. Also, I do not see the fine scratches that I would expect to be created when this coin is ejected from the collar. For these reasons, I think that this coin is counterfeit. This edge looks much better. Notice how the reeding is more evenly rectangular in its shape, the absence of blems in the valleys of the reeding and the presence of fine scratches in the reeding caused by the ejection of the coin from the collar after striking. Mr. Basok can buy the first coin if he wishes. However, I will not buy it from him if he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 Kisenish, if you have the coins, can you do US a favor and weight them if possible? I have a vague memory that mine registered 20.7~8grams on a pretty cheap scale. I will have to get an electronic scale that registers 2 decimal places for more accurate reading. I will be uploading my coins for opinion soon so stay tune... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobh Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 you just need to use a numismatic dictionary.... see attached. Very interesting dictionary ... ... I think I shall need to get this one soon! Does it have a title, and perhaps an ISBN number? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheburgen Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 Mr. Basok can buy the first coin if he wishes. However, I will not buy it from him if he does. I would sell it to him if one of my coin could arise such debates about authenticity. If he's got money to buy suspicious coins it's not my problem. Good luck with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kisenish Posted March 22, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 Kisenish, if you have the coins, can you do US a favor and weight them if possible? #1 - 20,52 g, #2 - 20,79 g Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kisenish Posted March 22, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 This edge looks suspicious to me. The reeding is poorly defined and tapers toward the edge. In the valleys between the reeding, there are small blems visible. Also, I do not see the fine scratches that I would expect to be created when this coin is ejected from the collar. For these reasons, I think that this coin is counterfeit. This edge looks much better. Notice how the reeding is more evenly rectangular in its shape, the absence of blems in the valleys of the reeding and the presence of fine scratches in the reeding caused by the ejection of the coin from the collar after striking. Mr. Basok can buy the first coin if he wishes. However, I will not buy it from him if he does. Very interesting, other people think exactly the opposite The second edge in your post correspond to the coin #1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grivna1726 Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 Very interesting, other people think exactly the opposite The second edge in your post correspond to the coin #1 If someone says they think a coin is bad, it is helpful if they can offer reasons why they think that is the case. Sometimes it is nothing any more specific than the coin "doesn't look right", the style is wrong. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't like the first edge for the reasons given. For coins produced with special care, it seems to me that the edge reeding should be more regular and better defined. Fortunately for me, my income does not depend upon my expertise as an authenticator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheburgen Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 If someone says they think a coin is bad, it is helpful if they can offer reasons why they think that is the case. Sometimes it is nothing any more specific than the coin "doesn't look right", the style is wrong. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't like the first edge for the reasons given. For coins produced with special care, it seems to me that the edge reeding should be more regular and better defined. Fortunately for me, my income does not depend upon my expertise as an authenticator. Basok is saying that both edges are ok, so accordingly both coins are genuine. We have a discussion on the other forum about it. Some people are saying to him that no matter what's on the edge they still see a lot of differences on both sides of the coins, so one of them is fake. I guess, the owner of the coins should take the advise of Ilya and send the coins to PCGS or NGC. In this case, we are going to get the 3rd, more independent and probably more presumably professional opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 Very interesting dictionary ... ... I think I shall need to get this one soon! Does it have a title, and perhaps an ISBN number? С удовольствием, bobh. I found this in a bookstore near Harvard many years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldman Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 Dear kisenish, My advise - sell it to Mr Basok (or anyone else willing to buy )! The sooner you do it the better as you have already made a mistake discussing your coin openly with the audience. It now has very..."unpleasant pedigree" anyway. With me regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timofei Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 From what I remember with my poor memory from 5 Column robles I sold in past 6 months, the second edge pictured on this page is good and is original and has whatever property of an original 1834 & 1839 strike you can name. The first one is bad. Trash it to Basok, whatever he gives you for that piece. Thank you, Kisenish, for very educational and clear photo-report, respect! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCO Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 ...I guess, the owner of the coins should take the advise ... and send the coins to PCGS or NGC. In this case, we are going to get the 3rd, more independent and probably more presumably professional opinion. That's right. That was my point from the beginning. Kisenish, send both coins to NGC and then post the results on this forum. We'll see the reliability of asking authenticity questions on forums, which is also valuable info. WCO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobh Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 С удовольствием, bobh. I found this in a bookstore near Harvard many years ago. My "нумизматический словарь" arrived yesterday from Amazon ... many thanks to you, белка! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.