Jump to content
CoinPeople.com

denga 1734


siluska
 Share

Recommended Posts

The only underlying feature of the overstruck coin is a few Cyrillic letters which is used in the latter period of the Peter I kopek. I think it's the much common Peter I kopek which is struck around the late 1710s to early 1720s. As far as the small little samples that I have and seen, most overstruck dengas (1730-1735) are stuck on kopeks from the late 1710s to 20s.

 

Do find an overstruck 1724 kopek as it is one of the scarcest - not too many of them were struck initially. I don't quite remember off the top of my head that there are that many early kopeks (1700-1710s) used for overstriking for some reasons, most likely due to low mintage figures and difficulty to recall coinages for the first (?) major copper overstrike event ever performed. Yes I know there were silver coinages overstruck in 1700s but I believe the scale of recalling vast amount of copper coins against the number of silver coins could be perhaps a ratio of 50:1 or so.

 

Steve - opinions? :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed this is overstruck on a regular Peter I Kopeck. Finding a Denga overstruck on a 1724 Kopeck would be very nice. I have one in my collection (I think I've shown it already). Here is another from an Alex Basok sale, along with an original 1724 Kopeck, Lot 151 from the Prokop Sale (Aurea).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I know there were silver coinages overstruck in 1700s but I believe the scale of recalling vast amount of copper coins against the number of silver coins could be perhaps a ratio of 50:1 or so.

 

I don't know what the ratio was, but certainly copper overstrikes are more frequently seen than silver or gold (copper forming the bulk of the circulating coinage).

 

The copper was overstruck for economic reasons as based on the face value of coins made from a given standard weight of copper. If the coins were struck lightweight (i.e. greater face value), then counterfeiting became profitable and the country would be flooded with false copper coins (as happened in the 1720s, leading to the overstriking of the 1730s).

 

Coins in precious metals were overstruck for political rather than economic reasons. Elizabeth's overstrikes of Ioann III silver and Catherine II overstrikes of Peter III silver & gold were done to remove traces of their reigns from public awareness, because they might become focal points for political opposition to the occupants of the throne. Certainly Catherine II had a questionable claim to the throne and her hold on power was not secure in the early years of her reign. Ioann III was killed by his jailers when an attempt was made to break him out of prison and restore him to the throne in 1764 (if memory is correct).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coins in precious metals were overstruck for political rather than economic reasons. Elizabeth's overstrikes of Ioann III silver and Catherine II overstrikes of Peter III silver & gold were done to remove traces of their reigns from public awareness, because they might become focal points for political opposition to the occupants of the throne. Certainly Catherine II had a questionable claim to the throne and her hold on power was not secure in the early years of her reign. Ioann III was killed by his jailers when an attempt was made to break him out of prison and restore him to the throne in 1764 (if memory is correct).

 

The death of Ivan III will be subject to doubt and I am sure we will never really know what happened now, but even contemporarily there were suspicions that Ekaterina II may have played a bigger part in his death than would have been seemly. But whatever truly happened to him, all traces of his reign were removed as best possible, including his name on coinage. I often wonder if DNA tests could be performed to determine whether Pavel was actually Ivan III's child as would have been expected for the continuation of the Romanov dynasty, or as would have been more likely given Ivan III's "problems" that Pavel was actually someone else's child?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, just one odd question - so far from the overstruck denga over the scarce 1724 kopek that you have seen, have you seen any others other than 1731? I own two and seen at least a couple more but all of them were dated 1731 including yours if memory serves me right. A coincidence?

Hi gxseries...I'm on vacation so I may be slower than usual in responding. No my Denga was 1734 / 1724.

You can see a picture in of the threads from last year (I think the one where somebody showed a 1731 / 1724).

 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The death of Ivan III will be subject to doubt and I am sure we will never really know what happened now, but even contemporarily there were suspicions that Ekaterina II may have played a bigger part in his death than would have been seemly. But whatever truly happened to him, all traces of his reign were removed as best possible, including his name on coinage. I often wonder if DNA tests could be performed to determine whether Pavel was actually Ivan III's child as would have been expected for the continuation of the Romanov dynasty, or as would have been more likely given Ivan III's "problems" that Pavel was actually someone else's child?

Probably you are talking about Peter III , not about Ivan III. I think the general opinion was that Pavel was son of count Saltykov, but it was rumor that Ekaterina II could not have children and Pavel was son of Elisabeth and prince Razumovsky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi gxseries...I'm on vacation so I may be slower than usual in responding. No my Denga was 1734 / 1724.

You can see a picture in of the threads from last year (I think the one where somebody showed a 1731 / 1724).

 

Steve

 

Steve, perhaps I wasn't clear in what I typed, so I'll rephrase what I tried to say. All of the overstruck 1724 kopek that I have seen are overstruck to 1731. Point is, it would be normal if there are examples of 1730, 1734, 1735 denga overstruck over 1724 kopek but so far, I have never seen one. Maybe there are examples in your database.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, perhaps I wasn't clear in what I typed, so I'll rephrase what I tried to say. All of the overstruck 1724 kopek that I have seen are overstruck to 1731. Point is, it would be normal if there are examples of 1730, 1734, 1735 denga overstruck over 1724 kopek but so far, I have never seen one. Maybe there are examples in your database.

:ninja: but that's what my coin is...a 1734 denga overstruck over 1724 kopeck. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:ninja: I wasn't paying attention ;)

 

Here was the original post of the overstruck 1724 kopeks http://www.coinpeople.com/index.php?showto...895&hl=1731

We'd talked about this even earlier than that:

 

http://www.coinpeople.com/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=315814

 

A great subject at any time of the year ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably you are talking about Peter III , not about Ivan III. I think the general opinion was that Pavel was son of count Saltykov, but it was rumor that Ekaterina II could not have children and Pavel was son of Elisabeth and prince Razumovsky.

 

Are you sure about this?

 

I thought Paul was the son of Peter III and Catherine II, but raised by Elizabeth (although it has been suggested more than once that Peter III was not Paul's biological father). Maybe it's just my imagination, but in paintings I have seen of Paul, I thought I saw a distinct resemblance to Peter III.

 

Catherine II might well have arranged for the murder of Peter III with the intention of seizing power for herself. I am unaware of any action that she might have taken to show that she was displeased by this turn of events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably you are talking about Peter III , not about Ivan III. I think the general opinion was that Pavel was son of count Saltykov, but it was rumor that Ekaterina II could not have children and Pavel was son of Elisabeth and prince Razumovsky.

Are you sure about this?

 

I thought Paul was the son of Peter III and Catherine II, but raised by Elizabeth (although it has been suggested more than once that Peter III was not Paul's biological father). Maybe it's just my imagination, but in paintings I have seen of Paul, I thought I saw a distinct resemblance to Peter III.

 

Catherine II might well have arranged for the murder of Peter III with the intention of seizing power for herself. I am unaware of any action that she might have taken to show that she was displeased by this turn of events.

I just received a wonderful book for my birthday which touches on this subject:

"Love and Conquest: Personal Correspondence of Catherine the Great and Prince Grigory Potemkin" which was edited and translated by Douglas Smith (ISBN: 0-87580-607-4). It is based on the original Russian edition of her correspondence by V.S. Lopatin.

 

Here, it is also purported that Saltykov was the father of Pavel. As to the premise that Catherine II couldn't have children, I would disagree with that. We know that Peter III probably couldn't (or wouldn't), so I wonder how long Catherine II -- who was "imported" from Germany -- would have lasted at the court had it been known that she also couldn't have children? Besides, Elisabeth would have been 45 when Pavel was born...although it's not impossible, I would say it's highly unlikely that she would have been able to have children at that age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the premise that Catherine II couldn't have children, I would disagree with that. We know that Peter III probably couldn't (or wouldn't)...

 

 

Bobh, thank you for your reply.

 

How do we know that Peter III couldn't or wouldn't have children? Maybe this is true, I don't know. It just seems to me that much of the commentary concerning such matters is based on rumors which might well have been the self-serving products of various competing political interests.

 

Certainly Peter III's making peace with Prussia and his admiration for all things Prussian made enemies unnecessarily in the Imperial Court, which was certainly ill-advised politically (perhaps paving the way for Catherine II to get rid of him).

 

Peter III and Paul both have reputations as being "crazy", but I wonder sometimes if those reputations (especially Paul's) are truly deserved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bobh, thank you for your reply.

 

How do we know that Peter III couldn't or wouldn't have children? Maybe this is true, I don't know. It just seems to me that much of the commentary concerning such matters is based on rumors which might well have been the self-serving products of various competing political interests.

 

Certainly Peter III's making peace with Prussia and his admiration for all things Prussian made enemies unnecessarily in the Imperial Court, which was certainly ill-advised politically (perhaps paving the way for Catherine II to get rid of him).

 

Peter III and Paul both have reputations as being "crazy", but I wonder sometimes if those reputations (especially Paul's) are truly deserved.

Well, if we are ever to learn the real truth, I suppose DNA testing would be necessary.

 

In one of Catherine's most remarkable letters to Potemkin -- titled "A Sincere Confession"; Potemkin apparently had the chutzpah to insist that she tell him everything about all her previous lovers, and she complied! -- she writes that after nine years of marriage to Peter III and still no successor to the throne, that Elisabeth demanded that each seek out other partners as a kind of fertility test! Peter III chose the widow Groot and Catherine chose Sergei Saltykov. In the commentary, the editor writes that it is "not known" whether the widow Groot ever became pregnant by Peter III or not.

 

Saltykov was Catherine's lover from 1752-54; after that, he apparently fell out of favor with the imperial court due to his "indiscreet" behavior and was sent away as an envoy. Pavel was born in 1754, so the timing would have been right. (Perhaps he felt neglected, or used, after getting Catherine pregnant and realizing that she would have no further need of him after the baby was born?) And seeing as how Peter III was seeing the widow Groot by then, it seems hardly likely that he would still be having sexual relations with Catherine, much less often enough to father a child -- after 9 years, this would be most unlikely, IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if we are ever to learn the real truth, I suppose DNA testing would be necessary.

 

In one of Catherine's most remarkable letters to Potemkin -- titled "A Sincere Confession"; Potemkin apparently had the chutzpah to insist that she tell him everything about all her previous lovers, and she complied! -- she writes that after nine years of marriage to Peter III and still no successor to the throne, that Elisabeth demanded that each seek out other partners as a kind of fertility test! Peter III chose the widow Groot and Catherine chose Sergei Saltykov. In the commentary, the editor writes that it is "not known" whether the widow Groot ever became pregnant by Peter III or not.

 

Saltykov was Catherine's lover from 1752-54; after that, he apparently fell out of favor with the imperial court due to his "indiscreet" behavior and was sent away as an envoy. Pavel was born in 1754, so the timing would have been right. (Perhaps he felt neglected, or used, after getting Catherine pregnant and realizing that she would have no further need of him after the baby was born?) And seeing as how Peter III was seeing the widow Groot by then, it seems hardly likely that he would still be having sexual relations with Catherine, much less often enough to father a child -- after 9 years, this would be most unlikely, IMHO.

 

Very interesting. I had no idea this letter existed.

 

I'm astonished Potemkin would have had the nerve to make such a demand. Catherine was the Empress and whatever power he had was at her pleasure. I have seen a chair which Potemkin sat in. At the top of the back of the chair is carved the helmet of Minerva (which would be above the head of the person who sat in it). Minerva was Catherine's adopted persona and the helmet her symbol (she is often seen wearing the helmet in medals and other art). Placing it above Potemkin's head would serve as a clear statement of just whose messenger he was.

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...