Overstrike, overdate, or both???

[bobh]

Here is a link to this coin's pictures: Pyatak (5 kopeks), 1793-AM (or 1793/2-AM). We have discussed this one some time ago, but I keep wondering how on earth something like this could happen?

 

The overdate is rather obvious; however, I don't believe it was really a repunched date in the die, but that this coin was struck twice using two different dies: the first time with 1792, then with 1793. Otherwise, I find no explanation for the misaligned crowns and the slightly different shape of Catherine's monogram ... the right-hand side and bottom half of the "E" line up almost perfectly, but the upper left-hand side shows a more pronounced curvature in the understrike.

 

If we accept the premise that this was done on purpose (how on earth could it be a mere "error"? ) then the question is, why did they do this? According to references I have (Brekke and Uzdenikov), the Annensk mint only started the overstriking program for Paul I in 1794. Do these later overstrikes look anything like this one? I can't tell just from the Brekke illustrations, but the doubling all over looks similar to my eyes.

[gxseries]

Bobh, in an event of an overstrike or double strike or such, chances are the physics behind it is so complex that if you factor in the original design as well as another layer on top it and assuming that if it was struck at a certain angle and the planchet was uniformally thick etc, it's just too difficult to imagine what can possibly form. Perhaps rittenhouse can comment more on it as this is merely what I have observed from error coins.

 

In the event of overstruck coin, honestly I don't believe so as usually most of them are rotated significally away from the original design. Whether it may be 5 degrees to 180 degrees, I don't normally see many that are struck head on head from the old to the new design.

 

Instead what I think is that it's actually a double strike and perhaps if you look at the bottom of the coin, it seems more pressure was applied downwards during the second strike and therefore a huge derivation of the angle rotation appeared on the top. That should explain the issue of the misaligned crown as well as the bizarre curvature.

[grivna1726]

Here is a link to this coin's pictures: Pyatak (5 kopeks), 1793-AM (or 1793/2-AM). We have discussed this one some time ago, but I keep wondering how on earth something like this could happen?

 

The overdate is rather obvious; however, I don't believe it was really a repunched date in the die, but that this coin was struck twice using two different dies: the first time with 1792, then with 1793. Otherwise, I find no explanation for the misaligned crowns and the slightly different shape of Catherine's monogram ... the right-hand side and bottom half of the "E" line up almost perfectly, but the upper left-hand side shows a more pronounced curvature in the understrike.

 

If we accept the premise that this was done on purpose (how on earth could it be a mere "error"? ) then the question is, why did they do this? According to references I have (Brekke and Uzdenikov), the Annensk mint only started the overstriking program for Paul I in 1794. Do these later overstrikes look anything like this one? I can't tell just from the Brekke illustrations, but the doubling all over looks similar to my eyes.

 

If it was an overstrike with different dies as you suggest, then I think it must have been deliberately done. Note that the coin was not just thrown in between the dies for overstriking. It would have to have been carefully placed there so that 12 o'clock on the undertype lined up with 12 o'clock on the dies used in the overstrike.

 

This does not appear to be part of Paul's re-overstriking program, because I cannot see any evidence of an earlier overstrike using 10 kopecks cipher series dies, only an earlier strike of the same type. So there is no immediately apparent reason for an overstrike.

 

I wonder if it might simply be a double strike with dies with a repunched date. Because these coins were struck without a collar, the second blow from the dies would cause the coin to spread and become wider and thinner than it was originally. This spreading process would also spread the relief parts of the coin so that, for example, the monograms might be slightly shifted and therefore out of alignment.

 

So why a double strike?

 

As I understand it, coins struck with a screw press were done using at least a 2-man team. There was the muscular guy who operated the press and a (probably younger and more nimble) assistant who inserted the blank into the press, removed the finished coin after striking, and replaced it in the press with the next blank for striking.

 

With coordination of their timing, this team could turn out a reasonably large number of coins (although certainly not as many as later steam or hydraulic presses).

 

If the rhythm of the interplay of this team is somehow disturbed, the coin might not be removed before the dies struck it again. This would lead to a result similar to that seen on your coin and the 2 blows would remain aligned at 12 o'clock because the position of the coin relative to the dies had not been disturbed.

[BKB]

The coin is double struck. A lot of them (5 kop AM) are. The best way to tell, -- such doubling of the crown. Why it happened, I do not know. Could be acidental, the way Grivna explaint it. Could be a deliberate attempt to obtain a better impression on the coin. (not likely because they would see that it is not working and there are a lot of these around from later years) I am siding with a doublestrike theory. As to an overdate -- 1793/2 am 5 kop is a listed overdate.

 

P.S. Paul's overstriking program could not have possibly began in 1794 because Paul only became an Emperor in 1796. :-)

[bobh]

The coin is double struck. A lot of them (5 kop AM) are. The best way to tell, -- such doubling of the crown. Why it happened, I do not know. Could be acidental, the way Grivna explaint it. Could be a deliberate attempt to obtain a better impression on the coin. (not likely because they would see that it is not working and there are a lot of these around from later years) I am siding with a doublestrike theory. As to an overdate -- 1793/2 am 5 kop is a listed overdate.

Thanks, BKB!

 

P.S. Paul's overstriking program could not have possibly began in 1794 because Paul only became an Emperor in 1796. :-)

Yes, of course you are right. What I meant was that when the Annensk mint started to overstrike coins for Paul, they used dies from 1794 and afterwards. No coins were overstruck using earlier dies, AFAIK.

[bobh]

I wonder if it might be simply be a double strike with dies with a repunched date. Because these coins were struck without a collar, the second blow from the dies would cause the coin to spread and become wider and thinner than it was originally. This spreading process would also spread the relief parts of the coin so that, for example, the monograms might be slightly shifted and therefore out of alignment.

Thanks, grivna1726! This makes sense to me.

 

As I understand it, coins struck with a screw press were done using at least a 2-man team. There was the muscular guy who operated the press and a (probably younger and more nimble) assistant who inserted the blank into the press, removed the finished coin after striking, and replaced it in the press with the next blank for striking.

Or maybe the muscular guy was the younger one? (The poor man handling the blanks was also probably missing a few fingers after some years of such work! )

[STEVE MOULDING]

The coin is double struck. A lot of them (5 kop AM) are. The best way to tell, -- such doubling of the crown. Why it happened, I do not know. Could be acidental, the way Grivna explaint it. Could be a deliberate attempt to obtain a better impression on the coin. (not likely because they would see that it is not working and there are a lot of these around from later years) I am siding with a doublestrike theory. As to an overdate -- 1793/2 am 5 kop is a listed overdate.

 

P.S. Paul's overstriking program could not have possibly began in 1794 because Paul only became an Emperor in 1796. :-)

 

Agree with BKB.

 

We know that sometimes you're going to see a 1793/2 overdate. We know that sometimes you'll see double strikes in these 5 Kopecks. Sooner or later you're going to see both features in the same coin, it's simple probability. This is, I believe, what Bob has found. It's really the simplest explanation and I don't see anything that would indicate otherwise. Still nice to see. Thanks again Bob. Interesting coin. Nice images, as always.

 

Steve

[bobh]

Bobh, in an event of an overstrike or double strike or such, chances are the physics behind it is so complex that if you factor in the original design as well as another layer on top it and assuming that if it was struck at a certain angle and the planchet was uniformally thick etc, it's just too difficult to imagine what can possibly form. Perhaps rittenhouse can comment more on it as this is merely what I have observed from error coins.

Thanks, gxseries! I agree with what you say about the complexity of the issue. When there are raised devices already on the planchet being struck, it presumably changes the direction of force in strange ways when those are hit first, compared to a blank planchet with an even surface.

 

In the event of overstruck coin, honestly I don't believe so as usually most of them are rotated significally away from the original design. Whether it may be 5 degrees to 180 degrees, I don't normally see many that are struck head on head from the old to the new design.

Right ... this also makes sense (absence of rotation).

 

Instead what I think is that it's actually a double strike and perhaps if you look at the bottom of the coin, it seems more pressure was applied downwards during the second strike and therefore a huge derivation of the angle rotation appeared on the top. That should explain the issue of the misaligned crown as well as the bizarre curvature.

Perhaps this might have been attributable to some random deflection of the force of strike due to hitting a raised device?

[bobh]

Agree with BKB.

 

We know that sometimes you're going to see a 1793/2 overdate. We know that sometimes you'll see double strikes in these 5 Kopecks. Sooner or later you're going to see both features in the same coin, it's simple probability. This is, I believe, what Bob has found. It's really the simplest explanation and I don't see anything that would indicate otherwise. Still nice to see. Thanks again Bob. Interesting coin. Nice images, as always.

 

Steve

Thanks, Steve! This has been a very educational discussion for me, as usual.

 

(BTW, I received the catalogs from Mr. Elmen, including the ones from the Brekke sale -- thanks very much for the help you gave me with links, etc. )

[STEVE MOULDING]

You're very welcome! Jim's catalogs are a central part of my reference library, and those for the Brekke sale are the center of the center ...except now they have to share their space with the Aalborg's.

 

Steve

[sigistenz]

You're very welcome! Jim's catalogs are a central part of my reference library, and those for the Brekke sale are the center of the center ...except now they have to share their space with the Aalborg's.

 

Steve

Hi all, click the link to compare the cipher 3 at 5kop1793AM and 5kop1793/2AM. Click on the appearing picture to enlarge. Sigi

http://www.sigistenz.com/bilder/2x5kop1793d.jpg

[bobh]

Hi all, click the link to compare the cipher 3 at 5kop1793AM and 5kop1793/2AM. Click on the appearing picture to enlarge. Sigi

http://www.sigistenz.com/bilder/2x5kop1793d.jpg

Very nice, Sigi!

[grivna1726]

Or maybe the muscular guy was the younger one? (The poor man handling the blanks was also probably missing a few fingers after some years of such work! )

 

It seems like a good way to lose a finger or more.

 

I don't know that the blanks/coins were handled with bare hands.

 

It would make sense to lengthen die life and produce a better product by softening the blank by heating it before striking. I don't know if this was actually done, but if it was, it would mean placing the heated blank in (and removing the finished coin from) the press by use of a tool such as a pair of tongs.

 

In addition to extending die life and making a better product, this would likely significantly improve safety by reducing the risk of losing fingers. It is also a low-tech solution which would have been easy to implement, even under primitive conditions, so it seems reasonable that some version of that basic idea might have been at least tried even if not actually used. However, this is just speculation on my part and I cannot point to any reference that says it was done that way.

[rittenhouse]

Agree w/ BKB and grivna, the coin is double struck.

 

Not sure if the Russian mints used hand feed or mechanical feed at this time. Mechanical feeders are quite simple to design so perhaps they had them. The mechanism occasionally jams and the coin is not ejected - double strike.

 

BTW, there were several press sizes corresponding to the force required: 2 man, 3 man, 5 man presses. Given the size, these almost had to be struck on a 5 man press. I'll try to remember to post the contemporary illustration from Ackerman's Microcosm (circa 1810). I think RWJ and I used this as an illustration in my JRNS articles.

[bobh]

BTW, there were several press sizes corresponding to the force required: 2 man, 3 man, 5 man presses. Given the size, these almost had to be struck on a 5 man press. I'll try to remember to post the contemporary illustration from Ackerman's Microcosm (circa 1810). I think RWJ and I used this as an illustration in my JRNS articles.

One man per kopek?