bobh Posted May 26, 2008 Report Share Posted May 26, 2008 I wonder why: Consider lots 306-310: five gold 10 rouble coins, all the same year (1904), all UNC (but one more so than the rest). Yet the best coin of the group went for the least money! Or did it have some hidden defect not immediately visible in the catalog? Correction: lot 306 had some marks and sold for only $550, whereas lot 310 (advertised as "lustrous UNC" ) went for $575. The rest sold at $700 each! 1904 is a better year (not scarce, though). But I think $700 must be a new record for this kind of coin! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobh Posted May 26, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 26, 2008 1904 is a better year (not scarce, though). But I think $700 must be a new record for this kind of coin! And even more interesting is that the only 5 rouble coin of Nicholas II in this auction (1909) went for $1450, exactly as much as the 10 rouble coin of the same year (albeit advertised as "UNC", whereas the 10 rouble was only "EF"). 5 roubles 1909 is not nearly as scarce as the 10 rouble coin of the same year ... Severin describes the 5 rouble coin's mintage figures as follows (anno 1958): "Figures from 1905 to 1909 are scanty. A case in point is the 5 Rubles piece of 1909, a date rarely met with in past years but currently glutting the market." (emphasis mine). What is your take on these lots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.