RW Julian Posted May 21, 2007 Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 Look at the position of the cross on the crown and the legend ending pretty far from the bust. I cannot find this die anywhere. Coupled with the alleged AU55 or Unc condition (cannot confirm due to the quality of pictures) it raises doubt in my mind. But, I am by no means certain that this is a fake. Need to examine the coin itself, including its weight and its edge. Better pictures would also help. This is the same specimen that appeared in the Giessener Münzhandlung (Gorny) sale 120, October 2002. RWJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grivna1726 Posted May 21, 2007 Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 Look at the position of the cross on the crown and the legend ending pretty far from the bust. I cannot find this die anywhere. Coupled with the alleged AU55 or Unc condition (cannot confirm due to the quality of pictures) it raises doubt in my mind. But, I am by no means certain that this is a fake. Need to examine the coin itself, including its weight and its edge. Better pictures would also help. The rendition of the nose, mouth and chin look odd to me. Maybe it's just the lighting, but Catherine's nostril looks strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grivna1726 Posted May 21, 2007 Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 This is the same specimen that appeared in the Giessener Münzhandlung (Gorny) sale 120, October 2002. RWJ The same coin, or the same die? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW Julian Posted May 21, 2007 Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 The same coin, or the same die? Same coin. RWJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKB Posted May 21, 2007 Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 Same coin. RWJ I checked the catalog, it ls the same coin. Dark spots are a bit different in shape now, which suggests some cleaning. Still, I would love to see some other reference showing an identical die on a different coin from before late 1980's. It is only my opinion, but I believe that good quality fakes of somewhat common coins started to appear around that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW Julian Posted May 21, 2007 Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 I checked the catalog, it ls the same coin. Dark spots are a bit different in shape now, which suggests some cleaning. Still, I would love to see some other reference showing an identical die on a different coin from before late 1980's. It is only my opinion, but I believe that good quality fakes of somewhat common coins started to appear around that time. The specimen in Alexander 2 (December 2005) appears to use the same obverse but a different reverse. It will be very difficult to find a good illustration of the 1763 YaI rouble from before 1995 because it is common enough that no illustration was provided in most catalogues. RWJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKB Posted May 21, 2007 Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 The specimen in Alexander 2 (December 2005) appears to use the same obverse but a different reverse.It will be very difficult to find a good illustration of the 1763 YaI rouble from before 1995 because it is common enough that no illustration was provided in most catalogues. RWJ Right. Lot 42. However, it is a 1763, and this one is supposedly a 1765. Let us wait for better pictures, because I believe that the dies are still different. Although, very close. To illustrate my fears of fakes -- here is a fake rouble of 1760's. I lost the obverse photo, so I am not sure of the exact year/mintmaster. However, I see a lot of similarities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kisenish Posted May 21, 2007 Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 Approximately2,750 different silver roubles have been recorded for Catherine II and the following shows the relative rarity: 1784 MM – 7 RWJ Dear RW Julian, How many roubles 1783 SPB-MM do you have in your database? Do you want my exemplar for statistics? Greetings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW Julian Posted May 21, 2007 Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 Right. Lot 42. However, it is a 1763, and this one is supposedly a 1765. Let us wait for better pictures, because I believe that the dies are still different. Although, very close. To illustrate my fears of fakes -- here is a fake rouble of 1760's. I lost the obverse photo, so I am not sure of the exact year/mintmaster. However, I see a lot of similarities. This obverse was also published in the Russian Numismatic Society Journal No. 83. The only reverse so far seen with this obverse is 1762 but others may exist. RWJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW Julian Posted May 21, 2007 Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 Dear RW Julian,How many roubles 1783 SPB-MM do you have in your database? Do you want my exemplar for statistics? Greetings For 1783 I have 25 IZ and 11 MM. Yes, I would be happy to have an illustration of your specimen. If you do not have my e-mail address, please send a private message and I will furnish it. RWJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted May 21, 2007 Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 The above fake is detailed down to the overstruck eagle, visible in the fields? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW Julian Posted May 21, 2007 Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 The above fake is detailed down to the overstruck eagle, visible in the fields? Probably a dateless rouble from that period was used as the planchet. In this way the edge would appear as genuine. RWJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timofei Posted May 22, 2007 Report Share Posted May 22, 2007 To illustrate my fears of fakes -- here is a fake rouble of 1760's. I lost the obverse photo, so I am not sure of the exact year/mintmaster. However, I see a lot of similarities. This was a coin dated 1762 presented as overstrike. The edge on this particular coin is genuine - it was low quality Peter 3 rouble used as planchet. Both dies (av and rev) had too many differences from original. That case was brought to GIM and the relevant pictures and GIM conclusions disscussed in Russian forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted May 22, 2007 Report Share Posted May 22, 2007 Wow thanks for sharing that picture BKB. I would have fooled if you didn't tell me that it's a counterfeit. Just shows how incredible counterfeiting had become. Does make sense though, I remember getting my worn 1780s ruble for just 20 odd dollars or less and one can strike super UNC coins out from that, instant profit. Counterfeiters don't have to worry about silver content etc. Timofei, that is quite suprising, a Peter III ruble? Assuming that the orignal coin is original and the overstriking feature is a counterfeit, wouldn't Peter III normally bring high prices these days? I can't really see why one would use an expensive coin to be used for 'counterfeit' overstriking And when would such fakes be made? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobh Posted May 23, 2007 Report Share Posted May 23, 2007 Timofei, that is quite suprising, a Peter III ruble? Assuming that the orignal coin is original and the overstriking feature is a counterfeit, wouldn't Peter III normally bring high prices these days? I can't really see why one would use an expensive coin to be used for 'counterfeit' overstriking And when would such fakes be made? Maybe it was overstruck on a fake Peter III rouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.