squirrel Posted April 21, 2007 Report Share Posted April 21, 2007 take a look at this. http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/RUSSIA-Elizabeth-174...1QQcmdZViewItem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW Julian Posted April 21, 2007 Report Share Posted April 21, 2007 take a look at this. http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/RUSSIA-Elizabeth-174...1QQcmdZViewItem Ekaterinburg eagle of 1788–1796. Perhaps one of Paul’s overstrikes where an old 1762 ten kopecks got mixed in with the 1796 pieces. RWJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted April 21, 2007 Report Share Posted April 21, 2007 Very interesting, thanks for the link squirrel. Not something seen often. Is that really 1761 though? Would be rather rare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grivna1726 Posted April 21, 2007 Report Share Posted April 21, 2007 Is that really 1761 though? Would be rather rare. It's probably 1762, not 1761. The 1761 is likely a guess by the seller. RWJ is almost certainly correct in his suggestion of a 1762 Peter III 10k getting mixed in with Catherine II's 1796 cipher series during Paul's reoverstriking program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKB Posted April 21, 2007 Report Share Posted April 21, 2007 It's probably 1762, not 1761. The 1761 is likely a guess by the seller. RWJ is almost certainly correct in his suggestion of a 1762 Peter III 10k getting mixed in with Catherine II's 1796 cipher series during Paul's reoverstriking program. I see no trace of reverse of 5 kop of 1788-1796. None!!! This is very strange for an overstrike. I also see design inconsistent with any known 1762 10 kop. I do not know what it is without seeing the coin, but, paying $300 to find out is a bit too steep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grivna1726 Posted April 21, 2007 Report Share Posted April 21, 2007 I see no trace of reverse of 5 kop of 1788-1796. None!!! This is very strange for an overstrike. It is strange and I cannot explain that. It is almost as if the reverse die were completely flat, with no design. I also see design inconsistent with any known 1762 10 kop. Lightweight copper in the past (Peter II @ 40 roubles/pood) resulted in a proliferation of false copper. 32 roubles/pood under Peter III is not as profitable, but might be sufficient to stimulate counterfeits. Maybe this was a false Peter III 10k? I do not know what it is without seeing the coin, but, paying $300 to find out is a bit too steep. Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted April 21, 2007 Report Share Posted April 21, 2007 I wouldn't agree necessarily. I can't quite tell what the orientation of the coin and it makes it quite difficult to do any analysis. During the early days of overstriking, I assume that extremely crude methods, unusual things can happen: Notice that the eagle on the clouds design is almost invisible on the obverse, yet appearent on the reverse. I don't know about the technology back then but mostly certainly various overstriked coins have unusual features as the pressure, surface flatness, underlying image etc all play a role. Perhaps rittenhouse can comment something about it? I cannot quite tell what exactly is wrong with the Peter III design but it does look rather "squashed" perhaps with an extremely worn out die or something stuck with the die. Theortically speaking, all previous coins of Paul I should be overstriked but it must be obvious that the mints couldn't get hold of all coins to be overstruck else there wouldn't be any earlier examples of Petrovna kopeks to Catherine II kopeks. But yes, one thing I agree is that I will not pay such mad prices for it. I would much rather get a genuine Peter III 10 kopek coin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigistenz Posted April 21, 2007 Report Share Posted April 21, 2007 I refer to the initial post: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/RUSSIA-Elizabeth-174...1QQcmdZViewItem Note that the coin is heavily underweight, instead of the regular 51,19g it weighs nearly 10g (~20%) less. As the diameter of 43mm is normal for this (1788EM) eagle type, the coin must be thinner than normal (although the picture of the edge does not show that). A lighter and thinner coin suggests that the monogram side may have been limed down before applying a fantasy 10kop design. As has been said, there is no such 10kop lettering seen in the literature. Note the primitive slanting 0 of the 10 and the poorly cut letters. Of course it is difficult to judge without seeing and examinating the coin in natura. Too bad the buyer is not made public. Mystery! Sigi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted April 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2007 But yes, one thing I agree is that I will not pay such mad prices for it. I would much rather get a genuine Peter III 10 kopek coin agreed. but it is quite fun solving such mysteries! perhaps 2 coins stuck together, piggyback style, overstruck, and somewhere there is its mate, with a 1796 Katherine II (Pauls re-overstrike) reverse, and a smooshed "obverse" that could be interesting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted April 21, 2007 Report Share Posted April 21, 2007 Probably very interesting - only wished someone here purchase it and tell us further. My only question was, if people tried to use a 10 kopek coin other than 1762 and 1796, would the public accept that it is a 10 kopek instead of a 5? If it is, perhaps there might have been a chance that a crook decided to make crude dies. Sigi, in your 5 kopek collection, what are the maximum deviation that you have there? I have yet to obtain a severely underweight 5 kopek but a severely overweight 5 kopek that I have is 76.4grams. (~50% overweight!) So far, the least underweight coin that I have seen is 38.4(?) grams although I am not too sure if there are any that are much lighter than it. A novodel example of 5 kopek that I remember seeing had an excessive weight of 100grams but I guess that might be an attempt of piedfort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigistenz Posted April 21, 2007 Report Share Posted April 21, 2007 Sigi, in your 5 kopek collection, what are the maximum deviation that you have there? gxseries, I am sorry but I have not recorded the weight of my coins but I am sure to not have a 5kop coin as heavy as 75g and not of severe underweight either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grivna1726 Posted April 21, 2007 Report Share Posted April 21, 2007 Too bad the buyer is not made public. Mystery! Sigi The buyer is "rarerussiancoins". If anyone knows him/her, maybe a request for a link to high resolution scans (to be posted here) might be possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.