Jump to content
CoinPeople.com

Any opinions on authenticity?


bobh
 Share

Recommended Posts

Paul's rouble (1798-CM/MB):

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=200186754638

 

I don't collect these, but have always wanted to buy a nice one if the opportunity presented itself. Therefore, I don't know too much about them. The reverse (i.e. the side with the cross) shows some suspicious-looking pitting in the fields; however, I suppose this might be due to a faulty planchet. Also, I don't like the mushy looks of the letters.

 

Is this appearance normal for this type? It also looks like there was a die clash, double strike or something similar on the reverse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul's rouble (1798-CM/MB):

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=200186754638

 

I don't collect these, but have always wanted to buy a nice one if the opportunity presented itself. Therefore, I don't know too much about them. The reverse (i.e. the side with the cross) shows some suspicious-looking pitting in the fields; however, I suppose this might be due to a faulty planchet. Also, I don't like the mushy looks of the letters.

 

Is this appearance normal for this type? It also looks like there was a die clash, double strike or something similar on the reverse.

 

Here's the ebay coin compared to the example in the upcoming Markov/Baldwin sale:

 

compare1798tb2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the ebay coin compared to the example in the upcoming Markov/Baldwin sale:

Thanks, grivna1726. The knobs on the inside of the curls in the ornamental leaves seem too big in the eBay coin; I don't think that can be attributed to wear alone. Also, there are other subtle differences ... anyone else smell a fish here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I consulted the books and my few examples.

Two things standout:

The "8" in "1798" is spaced out farther then the other numbers.

And the lettering is "mushy".

 

Also, the underside of the crown is visible on the middle left crown but absent beyond what could be ware on the other crowns.

 

I'd pass on quality and look for another example. I am curious as to whether the coin is made of a base metal. I don't get that silver vibe.

 

Thus ends my review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I consulted the books and my few examples.

Two things standout:

The "8" in "1798" is spaced out farther then the other numbers.

And the lettering is "mushy".

 

Also, the underside of the crown is visible on the middle left crown but absent beyond what could be ware on the other crowns.

 

I'd pass on quality and look for another example. I am curious as to whether the coin is made of a base metal. I don't get that silver vibe.

 

Thus ends my review.

 

You might be right. I don't know, but wonder if this coin might have been minted in China.

 

For those who might be unfamiliar with this issue, the device that looks like a cross is actually 4 Cyrillic "P"s (monogram for Paul) and the "I" in the center of the design refers to the fact that he is Paul I. A similar reverse design was used by Peter I & Peter II. There is a novodel rouble for Peter III with a similar monogram design in place of the double-headed eagle.

 

The inscription in the square (I believe) is a pious reference to Psalm 115:1 "Not unto us, (O LORD,) not unto us, but to Your name (give glory)".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing I noticed is that the commas at the right in the inscription are touching the inner rectangle in the eBay coin, whereas there is a distinct space in all the other examples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing I noticed is that the commas at the right in the inscription are touching the inner rectangle in the eBay coin, whereas there is a distinct space in all the other examples.

Hi Bob. I think it's fine. I have many examples in the database where the commas touch the right box. It's just a die variety.

 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob, save your money. You mention you would like a "nice one" to add to your collection. I think even if genuine (very likely) its pretty low grade, and just not a nice example. I picked a low grader like this for 35 bucks, (pure luck) this past year, but it only makes me want a better one. Unfortunately, all the better grade Paul roubles end up in bidding wars these days. Hold out for a nicer example, (unless of course you can :ninja: grab it super cheap.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob, save your money. You mention you would like a "nice one" to add to your collection. I think even if genuine (very likely) its pretty low grade, and just not a nice example. I picked a low grader like this for 35 bucks, (pure luck) this past year, but it only makes me want a better one. Unfortunately, all the better grade Paul roubles end up in bidding wars these days. Hold out for a nicer example, (unless of course you can :ninja: grab it super cheap.)

Thanks, squirrel (and Steve!) ;)

 

I was not interested in buying this particular coin ... if you notice, I posted the question about 10 minutes before the auction ended. It was more of a general "educate me" kind of question (and I have been educated!) ;) i see a lot of these in lower grades on eBay and elsewhere. There was a really nice one sold in a recent UBS auction for about $1,000 or so ... but when people start paying $250 and up for stuff like this (even if it is genuine, this year is not all that scarce), I start feeling very sad. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is perhaps worth mentioning that the averse in the photographs of grivna1726 is turned upside down.

 

This is a very common mistake indeed but nevertheless any serious numismatist should pay attention to the fact that these coins were not struck in an 180 grade angle.

 

A less obvious matter that has puzzled me is the question of averse and reverse of the coins from the period of Paul I. In the lower denominations the case is obvious but with the higher ones both alternatives may be seen. There is a predominant tendency to consider the monogram side as the averse of the coin, and quite rightly so, but these coins have also been represented the other way in authorative literature (among others Randolph Zander illustrates the roubles of Paul I this way). The tablitsa was chosen to replace or perhaps represent the absent portrait, and as the general concept closely follows the traditional form of roubles familiar already from the last years of Peter I and Peter II, this tradition would rather suggest the monogram belonged to the reverse of the coin.

 

As a curiosity, even in the Corpus in one of the illustration pages both ways can be noticed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is perhaps worth mentioning that the averse in the photographs of grivna1726 is turned upside down.

 

This is a very common mistake indeed but nevertheless any serious numismatist should pay attention to the fact that these coins were not struck in an 180 grade angle.

 

Thank you for your comments.

 

The orientation of the obverse & reverse were not chosen by me but rather those who created the original pictures as posted to the internet.

 

I left them that way when merging the photos, for ease of comparing the Markov coin with the photos of the ebay coin (which was the entire point of creating and posting the merged and labelled gif file here in the first place).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is obvious the mistake is that of the sellers! But it is a very common one and a rather bothering one. Another group of coins where items often are misplaced in auction catalogues is wire money.

 

So, Paul I did break a long tradition of russian coinage when the portrait was abandoned from his coins. Some sources point out that the Emperor was dissatisfied with the way his profile was executed in the pattern roubles.

 

I put forward another - and somewhat wild - theory.

 

Already according to contemporary sources Emperor Paul I was wery concerned in a possible attack towards his person. The later to have emerged conspiracy and unfortunate fate of the Emperor proves that this fear was far from unjustified.

 

The French Revolution and its course was closely watched in all European courts at this time. According to a well known anecdote a few years previosly (in 1793) the portrait on the french coins sealed the fate of Louis XVI. This story was certainly known soon after, and taking into account all the various steps the Emperor took to ensure personal safety it would not be surprising if in this lies the true reason of the abandoned portrait.

 

I point out that no whatsoever source I know of has mentioned any of this kind. I cannot and do not try to rewrite history, but on the other hand i have understood wild theories are loved today by russian historians and the public alike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is obvious the mistake is that of the sellers! But it is a very common one and a rather bothering one. Another group of coins where items often are misplaced in auction catalogues is wire money.

 

So, Paul I did break a long tradition of russian coinage when the portrait was abandoned from his coins. Some sources point out that the Emperor was dissatisfied with the way his profile was executed in the pattern roubles.

 

I put forward another - and somewhat wild - theory.

 

Already according to contemporary sources Emperor Paul I was wery concerned in a possible attack towards his person. The later to have emerged conspiracy and unfortunate fate of the Emperor proves that this fear was far from unjustified.

 

The French Revolution and its course was closely watched in all European courts at this time. According to a well known anecdote a few years previosly (in 1793) the portrait on the french coins sealed the fate of Louis XVI. This story was certainly known soon after, and taking into account all the various steps the Emperor took to ensure personal safety it would not be surprising if in this lies the true reason of the abandoned portrait.

 

I point out that no whatsoever source I know of has mentioned any of this kind. I cannot and do not try to rewrite history, but on the other hand i have understood wild theories are loved today by russian historians and the public alike.

 

Thank you for this. It's an interesting explanation and one which I have not heard before.

 

Paul's coinage has some interesting stuff going on such as the Efimki patterns and the "heavy" silver coins of 1797, followed by the reversion to the lighter standard in subsequent years.

 

I wonder if Paul might have chosen the biblical quotation over the portrait just simply because of religious impulses. But the sudden break with portraits of living Tsars for regular issue domestic Russian coinage for the next 90 years or so is interesting (although Alexander I 25 & 50 zlotys gold coins for Poland don't follow this rule).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biblical quotation is there not only for religious reasons, but it is a device of the Templars. Emperor Paul I was elected as Grand Master of the Maltese Order.

 

In 1796?

 

The Knights got kicked out of Malta by the French in 1798 and ended up with their headquarters in St. Petersburg 1799-1803, under Paul.

 

Very interesting and another reason for Paul (like the other royalty of Europe) to mistrust and fear the Revolutionary French.

 

Thank you for this information, Nordic gold!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The modelling of the biblical text is quite interesting - it can be speculated that it was modelled after the Dutch ducat as it was and still is very popular at that time. If I am not mistaken, St. Petersburg were making counterfeits of that for a period of time (a grand scheme eh?) and perhaps it was a bit too evident that the designs look quite "similar"

 

From GDJMSP's collection:

894059.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A brief look to the russian sources tell us the following: Emperor Paul I was elected as Великий Магистр ордена Св. Иоанна Иерусалимского (another term for the Maltese Orden) at 29th November 1798. However, already in January 4th 1797 the Emperor acknowledged Maltese Knighthood into Russia by a convention with the grossmeister of the Maltese Orden.

 

The first appearance in coins of this device is the "Albertus" rouble, which carries the date 1796, but it has also been said (Randoph Zander, p. 79) that these coins were actually struck only in early 1797.

 

The design of the dutch ducats indeed has a close resemblance with the gold and silver denominations in Russia in this period. But so has the swedish 16 öre piece, which was for the first time struck already in 1543 in the time of king Gustav I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The design of the dutch ducats indeed has a close resemblance with the gold and silver denominations in Russia in this period. But so has the swedish 16 öre piece, which was for the first time struck already in 1543 in the time of king Gustav I.

 

I don't have access to my references right now, but if memory is correct, at least some of Paul's pattern Efimki also have an edge inscription stating their value in Dutch stuivers (in addition to the design element similarity mentioned by gx above).

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...