sigistenz Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 Hi gxseries, thank you for accepting to screen mine, too. What do you mean with "photograph as FLAT as possible"? I did a 900dpi scan - would that be OK? Click on the rim of my picture to enlarge, click on the enlarged picture to further enlarge. I can do the others (1763,1764,1765) only tomorrow. Pleaase let me know. I am very interested in your results! Thanks again, regards, Sigi By sigistenz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 Sigi, it's DEFINITELY an overstrike - the year 1762 is very obvious to me and funny enough, it's aligned about right - no rotation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 I'll a bit busy for the day so I haven't done a proper fitting but this is the approximate location of where the underlayer is at: http://www.gxseries.com/temp/1766_cm_5k_sigi_overlap_f.png The year 1762 is quite obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE MOULDING Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 Once again I don't see anything. I must be getting too old for this. I want to see it, but I don't. My overstrike nose is usually pretty good, but so far I'm baffled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 Ok, this coin does look like an overstrike, but I'd like to see how thick it is. At the same time I can't see the undercoin, even when you show me where it should be. Maybe if you could add pointing arrows to places on the original image where you spotted the signs of the 1762? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennysky Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 I agree w/Steve, undercoin is not visible. We can add a transparency to almost any coin and it will appear right. Please provide a better indication as I am not yet convinced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RARENUM Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 I want to see it, but I don't. Not clear visible , but you can find: 1. It looks like "1" on 12 o'clock' .On the left side from the cross on the crown. 2. The line on the monogram "E" breaks matching to design of 1762 10 kopecks... Rarenum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 I think I see a flagstaff tip, but I'm far from sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 Guys, you must remember that anything that seems abnormal where it is supposed to be flat in the fields is a strong indication of something was there in the first place. If it isn't flat and something is there, there REALLY is something there! I am very reluctant to be over prescriptive of how to find the underlaying coin but for starters, I believe color contrast, negative do help. If that does not help, it may be recommended that you do a print out (I'm serious) to a A4 or letter size and print the 1762 10 kopek (make sure they are same size) on a transparency. Try and match and if it doesn't, go and do some tracing and it might give you another perspective. It does help and that is how I started in the beginning. Honestly though, my photography skills are much worse than anyone here so I'm sure it's a lot clearer by hand I'll wait for Sigi's feedback on what he thinks. I'm sure the year 1762 is VERY clear if it's viewed under a hand lens. Btw Rarenum, what do you think about your 5 kopek coins - reckon the underlaying image is where I believe it is at? I can give suggestions of where the major elements are if it's still unclear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grivna1726 Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 Not clear visible , but you can find: 1. It looks like "1" on 12 o'clock' .On the left side from the cross on the crown. 2. The line on the monogram "E" breaks matching to design of 1762 10 kopecks... Rarenum. It might be there, but it is not clear to me. I feel like I'm doing one of those inkblot tests and I wonder if what I "see" in it is really there, or just there because that's how my mind interprets data which is actually random and patternless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigistenz Posted May 23, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 Hello gxseries and thank you very much. I combined my picture with yours into one picture. It can be enlarged by clicking on the upper rim and again when clicking on the enlarged picture. The "10" of the undercoin (once knowing where to look and only then) can only be believed with very much good will, even with the coin in hand under a strong glass. Of the other features I can't detect anything. There are some die variants of the 10kop1762 and its other features may be slightly displaced from what is shown on your picture of one of the 7 variants. Your reasearch work is very interesting and I do not doubt that you are right. I remember that Uzdennikov stated somewhere that all the CM 5kop are overstrikes. Your research makes it believe easier. Obviously the CM overstrikes were very powerful. This coin in hand does not reveal any overstrike features, in terms of what we call overstrikes. Not even under a stong glass. Should I ever offer it for sale, nobody could be convinced of the overstrike. Thank you again, I am very impressed by your skills. If you would not mind I'd present the other suspects one of the following days. Best regards, Sigi By sigistenz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 The thing that makes it difficult is that the undercoin variety does not seem to match the variety that I have here. It seems that the number "7" is straight instead of a cursive 7. I only wished I have access to all varieties to have a better understanding. Would anyone happen to have a complete picture catalog of all varieties? Reckon Steve has all of them Also Sigi, please feel free to post all pictures that are of interest and I'll take a look at them. It just seems that CM coins are just heavily struck. Well duh, it was an armory apparently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE MOULDING Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 The thing that makes it difficult is that the undercoin variety does not seem to match the variety that I have here. It seems that the number "7" is straight instead of a cursive 7. I only wished I have access to all varieties to have a better understanding. Would anyone happen to have a complete picture catalog of all varieties? Reckon Steve has all of them Also Sigi, please feel free to post all pictures that are of interest and I'll take a look at them. It just seems that CM coins are just heavily struck. Well duh, it was an armory apparently Guys...OK...some thoughts. First I think it's outstanding that people are excited about this and that gxseries is doing an excellent job leading the charge. It's important in my mind to find an overstrike in the 1764-1767CMs. Good job guys. That said, so far I don't see any evidence. Planchets and dies have imperfections, and this especially true in russian copper, and you're going to see them wherever you look. Statistically speaking, if you look hard enough at any coin, you're going to find the "tip of a spear" or the "ear of a horse". In fact you're probably going to find several. I can look at a 1778EM 5K (definitely not overstruck) and find something. There are also a lot of ways to overlay an undercoin image, rotate it, and shift it. In fact there are an infinite number of ways to do it. No doubt you'll match some set of imperfections to what you're hoping to find. If, however, you can clearly see a date or letter or something on a larger scale then it's a different story. So far I haven't, and I've spent many hours looking at CMs, both my own and images here. There are glimpses and hints but I can't say that they're anything more than hopeful thinking. The argument about the heavy presses at the armory is often used. That doesn't, however, explain why we see with relatively little problem 1763CMs which are clearly overstruck. Not spear tips, but clear overstrikes. I do hope we find something that doesn't require a lot of good will (to quote Sigi) but unfortunately in my mind so far that's what we have. gx, if you really do see a clear underdate somewhere please do your best to do an exact overlay or otherwise indicate exactly where and to what extent you see it. Again I don't want to be negative, but so far the proof has not yet been found. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 That's no problem Steve - it's just something that it drives me crazy of not able to explain what I saw and still see. I believe the best way to tackle overstruck coins is to first find all abnormalities which should not be in the original coin design and circle them, even better is to trace the ones that I can trace. http://www.gxseries.com/temp/1766_cm_5k_sigi_highlight.png I hope this time around, the base of the number "1" and the figure "7" is VERY clear. There is double concentric rings which leads to the design of the cannon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 Thank Gx! I can now see the 1 and the tip of the cannon quite clearly. What’s on the first picture though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 Alex, if you look at the middle of the monogram, right before the letter I, the figure 7 should be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 Alex, if you look at the middle of the monogram, right before the letter I, the figure 7 should be there. This? Looks a bit too small Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 I reckon it is slightly higher up but as you can see, there is something that does look like the figure "7" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted May 24, 2008 Report Share Posted May 24, 2008 I reckon it is slightly higher up but as you can see, there is something that does look like the figure "7" Ok, I see something. Here's a thought, it looks like you sized up the images of the 2 coins to have the same diameter. However, an overstruck coin is a bit bigger than the original. I think if you make your 10 kop. image a bit smaller, you will have a better fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.