The 17xx overstrike

[Nordic gold]

I would like you gentlemen to have a look at this coin.

 

 

An overstrike of this kind (without mm) is once presented as an individual type (in the Mail Bid Auction #6, December 9-10, 1998 of Dmitry Markov). Mr Markov puts forward that the last two digits of the date were deliberately removed from the die. At the time of the auction there were known three examples of the type, out of which the one in the sale was the third. Now here in my opinion is a fourth as far as the reverse is concerned; but in my coin there is the EM mintmark on the obverse.

 

As a few examples have turned up this should prove the rightness of Mr Markov´s opinion about the removing of the date. So many coins could hardly have been struck softly in the same area of the coin surface purely accidentally, with absolutely no trace of the two last digits. But how should we think further? As I believe my coin represents the same reverse type, the one die with the date removed from it should have been used together with two different obverse dies (without mm and EM) or there were more than one reverse dies of the type 17xx in use - possibly in different places? Mr Markov says the type without mm was struck in the temporary mint of Nizhnyi Novgorod, but usually no subdivision between the mints is given for the overstrikes without mm and EM for the years 1791, 1793 or 1794 (the two other mints were St Peterburg and Red Mint in Moscow).

 

This is apparently something quite new. I have not yet seen any listings of this 1796 overstrike program oddity. Neither have I come across any other specimens. All opinions are welcome.

 

JRH

[grivna1726]

Now here in my opinion is a fourth as far as the reverse is concerned; but in my coin there is the EM mintmark on the obverse.

 

I see the mintmark as well. It is very clear.

 

As a few examples have turned up this should prove the rightness of Mr Markov´s opinion about the removing of the date.

 

What possible purpose would be served by removing the final digits of the date from the die?

 

More likely, I think, is that they were not there in the first place, or else they were filled with dirt, grease or some other material and therefore were not struck up on the coins.

[squirrel]

Do you have images of the other examples? Interesting.

 

Perhaps what we have here is a test over-strike, which undoubtedly would have been carried out before commencing with the re-overstrike program. The strike seems more "intentional" than the typical re-overstrike, ie very neat, centered, and aligned to the axis of the 10 kopeck beneath. A pattern, if you will.

 

[sigistenz]

The re-overstrike, i.e. the re-transformation into a 5kop, left only a weak impression on the right side of the coin. The E of it is barely visible or not visible at all. As the 93 is situated between the invisible portions of the E, it is not visible either. You got there a very interesting coin, I like it. Note that the line under the desyat kopeek is very high. Maybe there was an EM mintmark under the 1796? With a 900dpi scan one would possibly see more details? What is the edge like? What is the diameter in millimeters?

Thank you for sharing and for your additional information to come. Sigi

[Nordic gold]

 

I thank you very much for your comments this far. This is the article written in the Dmitry Markov Mail Bid Auction #6, and in it there are references to the other coins believed to be struck without a full date.

 

In diameter my example is one of the largest I have seen, 50 - 51 mm, and correspondingly rather thin. The edge is plain.

 

JRH

[BKB]

 

I thank you very much for your comments this far. This is the article written in the Dmitry Markov Mail Bid Auction #6, and in it there are references to the other coins believed to be struck without a full date.

 

In diameter my example is one of the largest I have seen, 50 - 51 mm, and correspondingly rather thin. The edge is plain.

 

JRH

 

All I can say is that Mr. Markov likes to tell a story in order to facilitate a sale. Last sale (XV) also exhibited some of the pearls of his literary exercises (lot 1004 for instance). However, any theory must be based on proof (evidence) and/or rooted in logic (preferably both).

 

It is hard to see either in that article:

 

1. He uses the fact that all three coins have weekness where the last 2 digits of the date should be.

 

2. From that he arrives at the conclusion that all 3 coins must have been struck with a special die and that it is a new die variety "with the above characteristics". (The "characteristics" would be the absence of the last 2 digits that were allegedly removed from the die). Needless to say that this conclusion does no follow from the first premice, because weekness in strike proves that there is a very good probability that the digits of the date simply did not strike up, and not vice versa.

 

3. From that he makes an inexplicable leap and assumes that the coins were struck in Nizhnij Novgorod. (I feel no need to comment on this)

 

This "theory" of his is a fantasy at best and cannot be used in support of any numismatic research. (IMXO)

[grivna1726]

All I can say is that Mr. Markov likes to tell a story in order to facilitate a sale. Last sale (XV) also exhibited some of the pearls of his literary exercises (lot 1004 for instance). However, any theory must be based on proof (evidence) and/or rooted in logic (preferably both).

 

It is hard to see either in that article:

 

1. He uses the fact that all three coins have weekness where the last 2 digits of the date should be.

 

2. From that he arrives at the conclusion that all 3 coins must have been struck with a special die and that it is a new die variety "with the above characteristics". (The "characteristics" would be the absence of the last 2 digits that were allegedly removed from the die). Needless to say that this conclusion does no follow from the first premice, because weekness in strike proves that there is a very good probability that the digits of the date simply did not strike up, and not vice versa.

 

3. From that he makes an inexplicable leap and assumes that the coins were struck in Nizhnij Novgorod. (I feel no need to comment on this)

 

This "theory" of his is a fantasy at best and cannot be used in support of any numismatic research. (IMXO)

 

BKB, I agree that the evidence that the last 2 digits of the date were deliberately removed from the die is not persuasive. Still, it seems a stretch that the coins would all show the same weakness in the same location by chance alone (not impossible, but unlikely, in my opinion).

 

I think a more likely explanation (as I mentioned earlier) would be that the digits were never impressed into the die for whatever reason or, more likely, that they were filled with grease or some other foreign matter which caused them not to appear on the coins.

 

There are coins made from dies that had only partial dates or had the final digit added when the die was used (for example, gx has shown his 1½ roubles / 10 zloty of 1835 with misaligned 5). So partial dates are certainly possible, if not commonly encountered.

[WCO]

All I can say is that Mr. Markov likes to tell a story in order to facilitate a sale. Last sale (XV) also exhibited some of the pearls of his literary exercises (lot 1004 for instance). However, any theory must be based on proof (evidence) and/or rooted in logic (preferably both).

 

It is hard to see either in that article:

 

1. He uses the fact that all three coins have weekness where the last 2 digits of the date should be.

 

2. From that he arrives at the conclusion that all 3 coins must have been struck with a special die and that it is a new die variety "with the above characteristics". (The "characteristics" would be the absence of the last 2 digits that were allegedly removed from the die). Needless to say that this conclusion does no follow from the first premice, because weekness in strike proves that there is a very good probability that the digits of the date simply did not strike up, and not vice versa.

 

3. From that he makes an inexplicable leap and assumes that the coins were struck in Nizhnij Novgorod. (I feel no need to comment on this)

 

This "theory" of his is a fantasy at best and cannot be used in support of any numismatic research. (IMXO)

 

Theories are not used to support research, on the contrary research should support theories. Agreed though that the story in that mail bid sale lucks logic and does not have any evidence to support the statements (theories).

 

About the coin, very much like how sigistenz pointed out that this is just weakness in strike.

 

Best regards,

WCO

[gxseries]

I'm very sure that it's just weak strike. In some of overstriking examples that I have, extreme unusual events can occur and you cannot tell what event can occur. Remember, these planchets aren't really flat to begin with and because of the complexity of the angle of where the coin was fed in, the underlying image of the coin with respect to the die location, pressure striking, etc are large variables.

 

You would normally think that most of the underlying image would be flatten out during overstriking but that doesn't happen in many cases. I believe Igors has an example where his last two digits are worn out too. Igors, I can't find the last thread that you had, mind if you share it again?

 

And lastly, remember that this article was created back in 1998 where Russian coins were almost largely ignored. Seriously, Russian coins were still largely ignored back in 2003 when I first started collecting so I wouldn't be too suprised if major dealers had to make up some interesting stories just to sell their coins. (although I wouldn't dare to claim that Dmitri Markov did so)