bobh Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 Looks like a genuine coin to me. However, the width of the mesh on the edge looks very wide, similar to AM strikes: 1789-EM pyatak Just curious as to whether anyone has seen such a wide mesh on these coins (sigistenz??) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NumisMattic2200 Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 I am not an expert on these yet, can you tell me what AM/EM stands for? Yes, the edge meshing is quite thick by the looks of it, thicker than the Pyatak I showed a few months ago anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 Numismatt, it's the mintmark for the Russian mints. I've copied this off from huligans guide off ebay: Here's a list of Russian Mint Marks I collected over the years:1st column is the Russian abbreviation, 2nd is the English equivalent and then the name of the mint and years used. AM AM Anninsk 1789 - 1799 БМ BM Saint Petersburg (Bankovaya Moneta) 1796 СМ CM Saint Petersburg (Gold) 1796 - 1801 СП CP Saint Petersburg 1798 - 1800 СПБ CPB Saint Petersburg 1724 - 1915 СПМ CPM Saint Petersburg 1757 - 1847 ЛМД LMD Leningrad Present СМ CM Sestroretsk (Finland) 1763 - 1771 СМ CM Souzan (Kolyvan) 1841 - 1848 ДМ DM Moscow (Moskovskiy Dvor) 1730 ЕМ EM Ekaterinaburg 1762 - 1877 НД ND Moscow (Naberezhniy Dvor) 1704 - 1730 МД MD Moscow 1704 - 1740 ММ MM Moscow 1730 - 1796 ММД MMD Moscow 1741 - 1758 ММД MMD Moscow Present КД KD Moscow (Krasniy Dvor) 1725 - 1730 КМ KM Kolpina 1810 КМ KM Kolyvan (Siberia) 1781 -1848 МШ MSH Warsaw 1842 - 1854 ИM NM Ichora (Izhorsk) 1811 - 1821 ТМ TM Feodisia, Crimea 1787 - 1788 ВМ VM Warsaw 1850 - 1864 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigistenz Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 Looks like a genuine coin to me. However, the width of the mesh on the edge looks very wide, similar to AM strikes:1789-EM pyatak Just curious as to whether anyone has seen such a wide mesh on these coins (sigistenz??) Hi Bob, see here for comparison both my 5kop1789EM edges. One of them is a distinct 1789/8 overdate. As to the eBay coin I do not think that it is counterfeit. Best, Sigi By sigistenz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marv Posted May 3, 2008 Report Share Posted May 3, 2008 Hi Bob, see here for comparison both my 5kop1789EM edges. One of them is a distinct 1789/8 overdate. As to the eBay coin I do not think that it is counterfeit. Best, Sigi By sigistenz I believe the coin to be counterfeit. If you go to www.coinarchives.com, and search for "1789 AND russland" you will find some pictures of 1789 EM and AM coins that have appeared in large auctions where, presumably, the coins have been vetted. I'm not saying that the big companies are always right, but look at several of the pictures. The EBAY coin's leaves on the date side, to the left of the date, don't look genuine, but the eagles on the state seal side really don't look right to me in comparison to the coinarchives coins. I believe this is a fake. On the EBAY coin, the "soft sign" at the end of the word "pyat" has the cross bar extending through the vertical element; on the genuine coins, it does not. There are enough other differences to make me believe that it's a fake. Marv Finnley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted May 4, 2008 Report Share Posted May 4, 2008 There are enough other differences to make me believe that it's a fake. Marv Finnley I would be surprised if this coin was fake, but I have been surprised in the past The EM mint had to make many dies for 1789, they struck 25 million coins with them. The overall design is consistent with what I've seen so far, some elements are different but it could be just a minor die variation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marv Posted May 4, 2008 Report Share Posted May 4, 2008 I would be surprised if this coin was fake, but I have been surprised in the past The EM mint had to make many dies for 1789, they struck 25 million coins with them. The overall design is consistent with what I've seen so far, some elements are different but it could be just a minor die variation. Yes, it's a tough call on these. Even the weight isn't necessarily an indication as, I've read, the tolerances applied to a large number of coins, not to individual coins as for the silver and gold. So there could be some heavier and some lighter coins that were issued. So how does one judge? And as you say, there were many dies, and some engravers were better than others. Looks like a field ripe for the forgers! Marv Finnley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted May 5, 2008 Report Share Posted May 5, 2008 Yes, it's a tough call on these. Even the weight isn't necessarily an indication as, I've read, the tolerances applied to a large number of coins, not to individual coins as for the silver and gold. So there could be some heavier and some lighter coins that were issued. So how does one judge? And as you say, there were many dies, and some engravers were better than others. Looks like a field ripe for the forgers! Marv Finnley I'd say that the odds of hitting a forgery of this coin are comparatively low considering the volume of the originals. I would not really expect anything but cast copies of this coin for now, given the number of more expensive coins that can be forged. But you never know, I'm hoping better informed members will spot those fakes once they come out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.