Jump to content
CoinPeople.com

Does anyone have photos to share...


bobh
 Share

Recommended Posts

Here's mine which I picked up several months ago (from a reputable seller):

 

1710-WD kopek (Bitkin 3386 -- look on p. 330)

 

This seems to match the picture in Bitkin exactly; it is the only one of the four varieties listed which show the upside-down "M" more or less straight and not slanted to the left. It is the variety with a "cross above head". However, I still have some nagging doubts as to authenticity of this coin. It shows very even wear across all devices and fields, almost too even to be true. Of course, it is also possible that this was the result of an old cleaning and retoning. If it is a fake, it is very deceptive!

 

I suppose I could send it in to PCGS or NGC to get it slabbed, but I would like to have more photos for comparison before going to the trouble and expense of doing so. For Peter I, I only have Brekke, Uzdenikov, Bitkin and (as of 1 week ago ;) ) Alex Basov's CD edition of the GDM corpus. The Grand Duke M. only shows three varieties, all of which show a slanted "W" (upside-down "M"); Uzdenikov does not illustrate this variety, although he mentions it in the listing without any special indication of rarity (Bitkin: R1). Brekke doesn't even mention it.

 

Yesterday, I have just bought some back issues of the "Journal of the Russian Numismatic Society" from their website, but they haven't arrived yet. Do any of you know if this variety (or a known fake of it) was depicted in any volumes since about 1999? Some of the back issues aren't yet available; I'd be keen to get those when they have been scanned. :ninja:

 

Thanks for any images you might be willing to share here! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bobh... I have the normal M variant. Brekke 204.

I am curious what Bitkin thinks of the rarity of this vs. the W, as Brekke, as you mentioned does not differentiate.. however, the Brekke supplement upgrades from - to -: and mentions as "this kopeck also has "WD"", but it is not clear if this rarity applies to both W and M variants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bobh... I have the normal M variant. Brekke 204.

I am curious what Bitkin thinks of the rarity of this vs. the W, as Brekke, as you mentioned does not differentiate.. however, the Brekke supplement upgrades from - to -: and mentions as "this kopeck also has "WD"", but it is not clear if this rarity applies to both W and M variants.

Bitkin lists about 24 different varieties of 1710-MD (including the four "WD" mentioned). Most of these are not designated as rare, but there is one (all four of the "WD" varieties are designated R1):

 

3369 (R1): Mintmark "MT," (probably just a partially filled die where the "Д" should have been);

 

GDM lists one mintmark variety as "ИД" which I couldn't find in Bitkin; however, this might be just a filled die error as well (have to study it some more).

 

I have the 1987 Brekke supplement published by the RNS, but I couldn't find anything about 204 in it, nor could I find any mention of the "WD" mintmark. Is there perhaps yet another supplement to Brekke I should look for? :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, don't have anything that awesome :ninja: Maybe Grivna has one - did remember someone in this forum had another such great example.

 

Hi gx. I tried to reply earlier, but for some reason the site would just hang when I clicked the "Add Reply" button. It's obviously working now.

 

I don't have an example of this coin (although I do have some other Peter I copper). I think it must be Igor's coin that you were remembering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi gx. I tried to reply earlier, but for some reason the site would just hang when I clicked the "Add Reply" button. It's obviously working now.

 

I don't have an example of this coin (although I do have some other Peter I copper). I think it must be Igor's coin that you were remembering.

 

 

There must be one more out there in this case. I am showing mine for the first time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Bob,

 

Haven't you bought approximately a year ago another exemplar of this variety from Mr. Augsburger for about 70 Euro?? :ninja: I can just remember that you overbid me ;)

 

I believe your coin is genuine, it is just very corroded, maybe it was in water for a long time. I think it not worth to let it slab - you'll pay an amount comparable to what this coin costs.

 

Greetings ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't you bought approximately a year ago another exemplar of this variety from Mr. Augsburger for about 70 Euro?? :ninja: I can just remember that you overbid me ;)

Hello Alexey -- yes, it's actually the same coin! (but it only cost € 41 ... maybe € 70 would have been more appropriate? ;) )

 

I believe your coin is genuine, it is just very corroded, maybe it was in water for a long time. I think it not worth to let it slab - you'll pay an amount comparable to what this coin costs.

I think you are right about the water -- or maybe it was found by metal detecting. The surfaces are very porous indeed.

 

As to slabbing, NGC only charges $15 per coin! PCGS would be around $50 ... then there is the extra shipping, etc. But I go to visit my Mom in the States often, so one of these days I will gather maybe 20-30 coins which I think should be slabbed and send them to NGC. But maybe this one isn't necessary.

 

Thanks for your comments! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

;) I am relieved that you will be slabbing this coin! The next time it gets buried under ground, or submerged in water, it will sure be protected! ;) ;) :ninja:

 

im just joshing.... but seriously, have you had any luck finding the later Brekke supplement?

Thanks for the link you sent me in your e-mail :D ... At the moment, I haven't actively pursued it. I am a little hesitant to buy it from this particular seller (only 97% feedback score is not very good, IMHO). But maybe it will turn up somewhere else?

 

I'm not particularly fond of slabs, as I guess you aren't, either! :D But for some coins, it is nice to be able to fend off people who want to question the authenticity of certain coins. I'm 80%-90% convinced that it is genuine, but it would be nice to have pictures of at least one known genuine coin to compare with it. Then, maybe I wouldn't have to slab it at all! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Steve! :ninja:

 

Although the upper part of the rider is too close to the rim to see if anything is above the head or not, the slant of the upside-down "M" seems to indicate that it is one of the other varieties (i.e. Bitkin 3387/88/89).

 

Does anyone have another example of Bitkin 3386??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...