sigistenz Posted May 29, 2008 Report Share Posted May 29, 2008 I read somewhere long ago that Mr Uzdenikov had said all the CM 5 kop coins were overstrikes. I had not quite believed that. None of the CM 5 kop encountered showed any overstrike marks. Then came gxseries's examination of some CM 5 kop coins, I think of rarenum's? They proved to be (unsuspected) overstrikes. I presented my four CM 5 kop coins (1763,1764,1765,1766 dates) in this forum. gxseries detected all of them as overstrikes. I had not seen that on the coins in person, still don't, and I don't see it on gxseries's demonstration, either. Yet he makes believe. My conclusion: Uzdennikov's expert statement (basing not only on the immense wealth of coins he rules but also on the archives accessible to him) combined with our friend's eyesight and layover technique prove that ALL THE CM 5 KOP COINS ARE OVERSTRIKES. I think now that in later 1763, CM must have used very powerful presses, leaving only their very first overstrikes visible overstrikes and that from then on the overstrikes were so powerful that they became perfectly invisible. Kudos to gxseries! I think he helped me make a big step forward. Thank you, Hisa, regards, Sigi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE MOULDING Posted May 29, 2008 Report Share Posted May 29, 2008 I read somewhere long ago that Mr Uzdenikov had said all the CM 5 kop coins were overstrikes. I had not quite believed that. None of the CM 5 kop encountered showed any overstrike marks. Then came gxseries's examination of some CM 5 kop coins, I think of rarenum's? They proved to be (unsuspected) overstrikes. I presented my four CM 5 kop coins (1763,1764,1765,1766 dates) in this forum. gxseries detected all of them as overstrikes. I had not seen that on the coins in person, still don't, and I don't see it on gxseries's demonstration, either. Yet he makes believe. My conclusion: Uzdennikov's expert statement (basing not only on the immense wealth of coins he rules but also on the archives accessible to him) combined with our friend's eyesight and layover technique prove that ALL THE CM 5 KOP COINS ARE OVERSTRIKES. I think now that in later 1763, CM must have used very powerful presses, leaving only their very first overstrikes visible overstrikes and that from then on the overstrikes were so powerful that they became perfectly invisible. Kudos to gxseries! I think he helped me make a big step forward. Thank you, Hisa, regards, Sigi Hi Sigi...you seem to be saying you still don't see anything but now are absolutely convinced because gxseries does? We've all seen the statement quoted in Uzdenikov about all CM's being overstruck. Is that his belief or is he quoting an earlier work? (his rarity tables were simply lifted from Tables published 100 years ago for example). I do believe 1764-67 CM overstrikes exist but haven't yet seen proof. If the CM presses were so almighty powerful why then do we see clear 1763CM overstrikes, no questions, crystal clear undercoin. After 1763 nothing. Why? You suggest new powerful presses arrived in late 1763. Do we know that? That would help me somewhat. What I do believe is that perhaps we can find examples in each year of a CM overstrike. I absolutely do not believe that every CM is an overstrike. I really would like to see one from 1764-67 but I need to see one with my own eyes, not the eyes of somebody else. And this is not at all to diminish at all gxseries great efforts in trying to help us see what he does. Best Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Shaver Posted May 29, 2008 Report Share Posted May 29, 2008 Just a question from an Ugly Copper guy. If the presses were improved in late 1763 for 1764 - 1767 overstriking .. should we not have even better overstrikes for 1788 ? mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE MOULDING Posted May 29, 2008 Report Share Posted May 29, 2008 Just a question from an Ugly Copper guy. If the presses were improved in late 1763 for 1764 - 1767 overstriking .. should we not have even better overstrikes for 1788 ? mike Different mint Mike. The last CM 5Kopeck was from 1767. 1788 overstrikes are found for MM and CPM. The argument is often made, mostly because it seems to fit a supposed fact that few people question, that the CM mint had exceptionally powerful presses, being an old artillery factory, and that's why we don't see any overstrikes. They mean after 1764-67 of course...1763 we see very clear examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE MOULDING Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 I'm going to post a commentary here from JRNS15 (written by Jacobowitz) which raises the same questions I have done. This has been debated for almost 25 years and still we haven't seen a clear example. I think gxseries technology is a step forward, but again the proof is elusive. I don't yet share Sigi's euphoric sense of belief. JRNS15 1984 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennysky Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 I seem to support Steve's observations and deductions. I own 4 CM pyataks and although they are somewhat crude, I cannot find any signs of overstriking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 Steve, many thanks for the report - it's definately very interesting. I do have a point to make, that is the mechanism of how an underlying image being overstruck should look like is very poorly understood as factors such as strike pressure, planchet thickness, striking angle, location of the original coin image with regards to the die, etc would all factor into account. Maybe rittenhouse would know something about how it works? I do have plenty of questions over what is going on - for most of the CM 5 kopek example that I have seen, they seem to be too "perfect" as in, they are quite circular instead of the overstruck 5 kopeks from other mints which usually result in some elongated or ovalish shaped coin. This even applies to the 1763CM 5 kopek overstruck examples that you have shown, Steve - I was expecting them to be far more stretched but now the heavily struck press idea is out of the window unless a collar was used for overstriking which is unlikely. What I find more puzzling is why the Sestroretsk mint was set up. If I can do my maths right, Sestroretsk is just a mere 50 kilometers away from St. Petersburg. History shows that it was open from 1757 to 1778, although it ended in 1767 with 5 kopek being the last circulating coin and experimented with the Sestroretsk ruble for a few years before it shut down. Sure doesn't seem surprising enough yet. Is there any strategic purpose of maintaining a mint from that distance? I don't see any point. Did St. Petersburg have trouble meeting up with capacity? But what's the point if they had to supply all the dies and equipments to Sestroretsk mint? One of the most interesting document that Uzdenikov mentioned is that there were supposedly a few commemorative pyataks to commemorate the introduction of producing coins from cannon metal which was then presented to Catherine II. Wow, so much effort from this mint. It is in my opinion that this mint was trying to experiment with new technologies as well as possible new die designs. Otherwise, why wouldn't St. Petersburg bother experimenting with kilo rubles? Did they manage to find some ways of overstriking coins in an acceptable way? But even so, coins from CM, regardless of any year are just not common. For that similar reason, I also believe that the kopek overstruck on Swedish ore coins were also done there, not in St. Petersburg as I originally though. Whatever Sestroretsk did do their 1763 5 kopeks, they sure did a good job as there aren't that many obvious overstruck examples. It is my belief that there should be a lot more 1763 overstruck examples as it would be difficult to believe that they only struck so few examples of the 1762 10 kopeks and then let them sit somewhere in the mint. Perhaps a more interesting analysis is to see how many of those not-too-clear examples are actually overstruck but is not visible due to low resolution. I reckon with the new technology these days, you can see a lot more interesting things coming out from labs, such as the recent scans on various old artists' work that show very complex brush strokes as well as previously undetected hidden image that was painted over. Nevertheless, I'll work on Sigi's files later tonight or this weekend as I have more time. By the way Steve, do you really not see anything in this coin? http://www.coinpeople.com/index.php?showtopic=19852 I thought the letter "T" should be very obvious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 lennysky, please kindly provide high resolution photos of all your pyataks like sigi and rarenum and I'll see if I am hallucinating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennysky Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 I will try to make decent photos, but am unsure on how to post better pictures due to size limitations. Appreciate the help though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennysky Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 I have a decent photo of my 1766 CM, but each is like 1.2mb. Any suggestions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 lennysky, you can create an account at imageshack.us and I believe they allow you to upload filesize of up to 3 mbs. If not, you can always do the traditional way and sent it to my email account: Waiting for your images Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE MOULDING Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 By the way Steve, do you really not see anything in this coin? http://www.coinpeople.com/index.php?showtopic=19852 I thought the letter "T" should be very obvious Hi gx. I'll definitely take another look this weekend! The other points I'll ponder then too. Best Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigistenz Posted May 30, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 lennysky, you can create an account at imageshack.us and I believe they allow you to upload filesize of up to 3 mbs. If not, you can always do the traditional way and sent it to my email account: Waiting for your images Hi and thank you all for the lively discussion. In the recent Copenhagen sales of the Aalborg collection (RUSSIA I-II-II-IV) there were 7 of the CM 5kop (lacking only the 1767). I have saved all the enlarged pictures. Not familiar with the "copyright" claimed in the catalogs, I asked the auctioneer's permission to show the pictures here. It would be high quality material to be screened Sigi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Shaver Posted May 31, 2008 Report Share Posted May 31, 2008 Still questioning the logic. I yield to your expertise on the 1764 - 1767 C M 5 kopeks. I took my examples and put them together with E M 5 kopeks of the same years. All are the same diameter(the exact same in redundant speak). Was a collar used to prevent flattening ? Could the possible use of cannon metal have made the overstrikes undetectable ? Help me here. I'm a slow learner. mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grivna1726 Posted May 31, 2008 Report Share Posted May 31, 2008 I took my examples and put them together with E M 5 kopeks of the same years. All are the same diameter(the exact same in redundant speak). Was a collar used to prevent flattening ? I think it is highly improbable that a collar was used. Collars were not used in making Russian gold or silver coins until the 19th century, so it seems unlikely that they would have been used for copper coins as part of an overstriking program in the 18th century. With all due respect to the posters here and to authorities of the past who have been referenced, I don't see any evidence of overstriking from the pictures shown here. The lack of broader, thinner flans or clearly visible traces of any undertype argues against them being overstrikes and suggests instead that these were made from new flans, despite what GM and others might have believed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Shaver Posted May 31, 2008 Report Share Posted May 31, 2008 Thanks Grivna. Can we vote on this? I want to be a super deligate. Seriously .. is this like the Emperors new clothes? I don't see but everyone else does. mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted May 31, 2008 Report Share Posted May 31, 2008 I'm afraid this is something I have to disagree and that it just seems that way from the ones I have seen are overstruck. The only thing hindering my interpretation is the low resolution photos which otherwise I am more than happy to do any analysis. Mind you, I do have experiences in exploiting data to find minerals and it is essential to exploit every single major detail that a human eye can see. Again, this maybe something that either one can see it or not. Do people remember the fad about 10 years ago of something called "Hidden Image Stereograms" or "3D stereograms" or probably known as 3d optical illusion? I think it's premature to totally disregard the historical notes of overstriking over old coins couldn't have happened during that period of time. All you need is one example and the whole belief will be thrown out of the window. Again, the scarcity of CM coinages with regards to other mints might mean something, which I believe Sestroretsk mint took pride in producing quality coins instead of volume which might led to its shutdown a few years later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobh Posted May 31, 2008 Report Share Posted May 31, 2008 The lack of broader, thinner flans or clearly visible traces of any undertype argues against them being overstrikes and suggests instead that these were made from new flans, despite what GM and others might have believed. This is a very compelling argument. The theory that the CM mint had more powerful presses and were supposedly able to more thoroughly obliterate the undercoin's features would imply that the resulting planchets would be even broader and thinner than the ones we see on the known overstrikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grivna1726 Posted May 31, 2008 Report Share Posted May 31, 2008 I'm afraid this is something I have to disagree and that it just seems that way from the ones I have seen are overstruck. The only thing hindering my interpretation is the low resolution photos which otherwise I am more than happy to do any analysis. Mind you, I do have experiences in exploiting data to find minerals and it is essential to exploit every single major detail that a human eye can see. Again, this maybe something that either one can see it or not. Do people remember the fad about 10 years ago of something called "Hidden Image Stereograms" or "3D stereograms" or probably known as 3d optical illusion? I think it's premature to totally disregard the historical notes of overstriking over old coins couldn't have happened during that period of time. All you need is one example and the whole belief will be thrown out of the window. Again, the scarcity of CM coinages with regards to other mints might mean something, which I believe Sestroretsk mint took pride in producing quality coins instead of volume which might led to its shutdown a few years later. Gx, I have great respect for both your efforts and your observational skills, but I'm afraid I just don't see what you do, no matter how hard I look. I do remember the "Hidden Image Stereograms" you mention (somewhere I have a hardbound book of them given to me as a gift years ago). For whatever it might be worth, I could never see any of the hidden images that everyone else reported seeing in them, no matter how long I looked. Maybe there's something similar happening here. But, at this point, I remain unconvinced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE MOULDING Posted May 31, 2008 Report Share Posted May 31, 2008 Grand Duke Corpus: Senate Decree from Feb 1764 re: Copper at CM. Russian readers...anything of note in here? Link (in case that didnt work) http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/200/page073jj2.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted May 31, 2008 Report Share Posted May 31, 2008 Gx, I have great respect for both your efforts and your observational skills, but I'm afraid I just don't see what you do, no matter how hard I look. I do remember the "Hidden Image Stereograms" you mention (somewhere I have a hardbound book of them given to me as a gift years ago). For whatever it might be worth, I could never see any of the hidden images that everyone else reported seeing in them, no matter how long I looked. Maybe there's something similar happening here. But, at this point, I remain unconvinced. I can't "magic eye" either I saw some details of what could have been elements of the undercoin (once Gx pointed them out However, I do not believe that all coins produced by the CM mint are overstrikes, especially in the later part of the run. The coin that I own certainly is no overstrike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted May 31, 2008 Report Share Posted May 31, 2008 Alex, point taken. My point is, there is a strong belief that all the later years of the CM 5 kopeks are likely to be struck on fresh planchets and my purpose here is to debunk the mystery. Alex, if it is possible for you to take photos of your coin (I know I am asking a difficult task to you), can you post a photo of what you got there? I might be able to see if something is there, otherwise I will pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted May 31, 2008 Report Share Posted May 31, 2008 Steve, by ANY chances would the same document have anything about the Sestroretsk mint in 1757 and 1762? I see St. Petersburg Mint mentioned but I can't quite understand - oh how I wished I knew a bit more Russian Translation will be highly appreciated. Also, is this article from the "Grand Duke" book that everyone's been talking about? Looks like I need to invest in a bunch of books soon. Uzdenikov has already lasted me as long as it can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE MOULDING Posted May 31, 2008 Report Share Posted May 31, 2008 Yes. The Grand Duke corpus. My set is in 11 very heavy hard-back large-format (35cmx25cm) volumes. Around $800, 3 years ago. There may be cheaper editions around somewhere. The volumes contain thousands of coin related senate decrees and other communications (in date order) as well as photographs of every russian coin for every year. It's an invaluable research resource. The document I posted (Feb 1764) jumped out at me when I turned to 1764. The title includes the words Sestroretsk Copper Coins so we're on the right track. I'll check what else we have for other years. If we could see what was in these documents we might get a better understanding of the story instead of having to guess. Now if only my Russian was better.... ps. The Grand Duke CM coins don't show overstrikes either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted May 31, 2008 Report Share Posted May 31, 2008 I'm sure some native Russian speakers can help us here. (or I hope so) Looks like the Grade Duke corpus will be one of the first few books I MUST buy although I have no idea where I can get one other than auction houses. I believe a further understanding of the Sestroretsk mint's operations may help to give another insight that we could have missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.