Paul's overstrike???

[alexbq2]

Hundreds of them are hanging around undocumented. Alexbq2 examples, eBay crap, WAG, etc. My point is simple. Not in the catalog or not from the recognized collection - it is a fake.

 

Is the Gelos coin in any catalog? I'm still looking for references

 

You do not need to reveal your private source or picture, if you say it is just like the Gelos coin that is enough.

 

As far as minor and fantasy Novodels, many serious collectors both now and in the past don't (and did not) regard them as worthy of notice. Just read want the Grand Duke had to say about them! Researchers don't care for them either, that is why there is no good reference as far as I know.

[RW Julian]

Speaking of russian coins. If it is not in the major catalog (Uzdenikov, Bitkin, Usupov, Duke etc) chances are the thing is a coin - waaaay less then 1%. Major discovery in the archives have to be made or some big collection with the prooven history appiers on the auction or in the museum. Otherwise it is just a modern junk.

I think I will politely disagree with this. The modern references named essentially use the

Grand Duke as amplified by Giel-Ilyin and Ilyin-Tolstoy. In each case the modern author

has made a good effort to add pieces to his lists but there are still many discoveries waiting

to be found.

 

A reasonable example of this is the 1786 gold two roubles. It was originally published in the

late 1830s by Chaudoir but then denounced by Schubert in the 1850s and again by the Grand

Duke in the corpus volume for Catherine II. Giel, Ilyin, and Tolstoy unanimously condemned

the Chaudoir listing, saying in essence that it was a die fault, not a 6 in the date. We now know

a great deal more about dies and hubs than was known before 1917 and the 1786 two roubles

is genuine beyond any doubt; it is, however, not listed in any of the references given above.

 

It is not necessary to find archival documents or provenance to a major collection to show that

a coin is genuine. I will agree with And986, however, that such proof is welcome at any time.

 

RWJ

[grivna1726]

I think I will politely disagree with this. The modern references named essentially use the

Grand Duke as amplified by Giel-Ilyin and Ilyin-Tolstoy. In each case the modern author

has made a good effort to add pieces to his lists but there are still many discoveries waiting

to be found.

 

A reasonable example of this is the 1786 gold two roubles. It was originally published in the

late 1830s by Chaudoir but then denounced by Schubert in the 1850s and again by the Grand

Duke in the corpus volume for Catherine II. Giel, Ilyin, and Tolstoy unanimously condemned

the Chaudoir listing, saying in essence that it was a die fault, not a 6 in the date. We now know

a great deal more about dies and hubs than was known before 1917 and the 1786 two roubles

is genuine beyond any doubt; it is, however, not listed in any of the references given above.

 

It is not necessary to find archival documents or provenance to a major collection to show that

a coin is genuine. I will agree with And986, however, that such proof is welcome at any time.

 

RWJ

 

Here is a (previously posted) example of the 1786 2 roubles:

[And986]

"It is not necessary to find archival documents or provenance to a major collection to show that

a coin is genuine."

 

RWJ, what is necessary than? In your example you referred yourself to the old documents! You even refer to the year the first related document was published for the 2 rouble example. Almost 200 years ago... How is your own example relevant to the above statement? This coin has such a rich history behind...

 

You say "still many discoveries waiting to be found." - and I wonder how? By declaration? Please explain! No documents, no archives, no collections. The coin just appear out of nowhere...

 

My point was simple. Discoveries WILL BE MADE. The documents can be found, archives will be researched, old collections with the traceble purchase history will surface...

 

Who or what curcumstances give someone the right to declare the coin real? Again, IF there is NO documentation, NO archives or museum records, the similar dies are NOT present in prestigious collections.... What should that be? A miracle? Without reference to "archival documents or provenance to a major collection" Would you answer please?

 

Alexbq2, the Gelos coin was in old the auction catalog (similar one, same dies). The dies are traceable back to 1930-th. Good enough for me. But again, for me only! Other people may think differently. If I find it - I'll scan it for you. As I said before I do have a picture of the real coin for the comparison. So i would gladly buy Gelos coin if I would be living in Russia.

 

It's just a coincidence that I have the picture of the coin made with the same dies. If I wouldn't have the picture I would say that I'm not sure about that coin ether.

[alexbq2]

I would like to thank everyone for their input!

 

In addition to RW Julians mention of the Grand Duke, I would like to point out that not only is his corpus the foundation and much more of Russian Numismatic studies, but also his views are still very much with us. And he is the man who stopped with his petition the entire practice of Novodels, so I am not surprised that I can't find any popular reference on the subject. For the same reason lots of Novodels would me missing from the more significant collections of the period, since the collectors did not regard them as legitimate coinage.

 

But moving away from the academic to more practical. I took the WAG coin with the large flan. Resized it rotated it slightly made it opaque (thank you Paint.net) and layered it on top of the Gelos coin (which we know is genuine). The result is a perfect match! This is it:

 

 

Here is the smaller WAG coin:

[alexbq2]

"It is not necessary to find archival documents or provenance to a major collection to show that

a coin is genuine."

 

RWJ, what is necessary than? In your example you referred yourself to the old documents! You even refer to the year the first related document was published for the 2 rouble example. Almost 200 years ago... How is your own example is relevant to the above statement? This coin has the rich history behind...

 

You say "still many discoveries waiting to be found." - and I wonder how? By declaration? Please explain! No documents, no archives, no collections. The coin just appear out of nowhere...

 

My point was simple. Discoveries WILL BE MADE. The documents can be found, archive will be researched, old collections with the traceble purchase history will surface...

 

Who or what curcumstances give you the right to declare the coin real? Again, IF there is NO documentation, NO archives or museum records, the similar dies are NOT present in prestigious collections.... What should that be? A miracle? Without reference to "archival documents or provenance to a major collection" Would you answer please?

 

Alexbq2, the Gelos coin was in old auction catalog (similar one, same dies). If I find it - I'll scan it for you. As I said I have a picture of the real coin for comparison. So i would gladly buy Gelos coin if I would be living in Russia.

 

It just a coincidence that I have picture of the coin made with the same dies. If I wouldn't have the picture I would say that I'm not sure about that coin ether.

 

 

Thank you, I would appreciate if you could post the image(s) you have.

 

Also, do not forget that a new coin can be found in a coin hoard. In wires they are making a lot of new discoveries all the time! This of course is not likely to apply to Novodels.

[And986]

The WAG coin is good too than... Thank you for the work you did, Alexbq2! Makes me confident am not mistaken...

 

Right. Archeological findings of course. When the time incapsulation is without doubht.

[alexbq2]

So, who here thinks I have way too much time on my hands?

 

Here's some more CSI

 

Looking at the flip side of the Gelos coin, I was able to match it to another WAG coin. Here:

[alexbq2]

Now Gelos:

[alexbq2]

And now both:

[alexbq2]

Now the Rider on the WAG coin:

[alexbq2]

Now how about this guy? Does he look familiar?

 

From a different WAG coin:

[alexbq2]

But this last guy has this flip side:

[alexbq2]

And this is from the eBay coin shown earlier (not mine):

[alexbq2]

So now out of a single documented coin we have 4 identifiable dies!!!

 

To Be Continued...

[alexbq2]

The saga continues!!! Plot thickens!!! When will this all end?!

 

Well last lettered side can be matched to 2 almost identical WAG coins. The size of the flan is different but the design on both sides is the same. So the lettered side, WAG calls it reverse, but I would think that it is obverse, is the same as the last one. But the rider is once again different:

[alexbq2]

This happens to be the same rider as on one of the eBay coins (once again not mine):

[alexbq2]

In case the reader is not convinced one more superposition:

[alexbq2]

What's interesting is that eBay coin is has a new reverse die. This time Fedor Alekseevich!

[alexbq2]

As you can guess this reverse (lettering) die matches something on WAG.

 

This time it is a much smaller coin - Fedor's Denga:

[alexbq2]

Luckily, this last coin (I hope no one will disagree), is identical to one of the coins that I bought:

[And986]

They are very different in my opinion. Different dies. Only Gelos and WAG coins seems to be similar

[alexbq2]

The eBay Fedor die also matches another WAG kopeek, with a different rider - so a new coin die!

 

This is the superimposition:

[alexbq2]

Here is that coin:

[And986]

the question is, who did make them and how many months ago?