Jump to content
CoinPeople.com

Overstrike or not? Aalborg collection 5kop1766CM


sigistenz
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi everybody and gxseries in special, here is the 5kop1766/5CM to be screened. Is it an overstrike as all the other CM coins presented so far? I think there is a ghost 7 following the 7? Sigi

iaspxoy1.jpg

By sigistenz

iaspx2pf9.jpg

By sigistenz

This coin was auctioned by Thomas Høiland, Copenhagen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it an overstrike as all the other CM coins presented so far?

Sigi: I have to state for the record this is not yet accepted. It is, so far, a very narrow opinion, and I would prefer we say something like

"as all the other CM coins presented so far may be"

 

Best regards

 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, let's start from the more obvious points. In the second picture, where you have the double head eagle, I would like to point out the left side of the eagle where it's holding the scepter. Look more onto the left and above the banner - you should be able to see the remains of a star. If you work your way out, most of the stars should be visible. Offside - does anyone find the letter "O" of kopek positioned a bit too high up? :ninja: Don't remember seeing anything like that.

 

In the middle of the monogram, in particular the bottom, in particular where you see the letter E intersecting the letter P, there is an oval shape which may initially look like "/\" or the letter "A". That is the remains of the drum. Also, if you look carefully in the region above the digit "1" and IN the ferns, you should be barely be able to see part of the letter "K" cropping out. This one is definately more hideous but I still view it as an overstrike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, let's start from the more obvious points. In the second picture, where you have the double head eagle, I would like to point out the left side of the eagle where it's holding the scepter. Look more onto the left and above the banner - you should be able to see the remains of a star. If you work your way out, most of the stars should be visible. Offside - does anyone find the letter "O" of kopek positioned a bit too high up? :ninja: Don't remember seeing anything like that.

 

In the middle of the monogram, in particular the bottom, in particular where you see the letter E intersecting the letter P, there is an oval shape which may initially look like "/\" or the letter "A". That is the remains of the drum. Also, if you look carefully in the region above the digit "1" and IN the ferns, you should be barely be able to see part of the letter "K" cropping out. This one is definately more hideous but I still view it as an overstrike.

 

I am sorry, but I do not see any of it. Driving me crazy. ;) Can you possibly draw it out in Photoshop?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigi: I have to state for the record this is not yet accepted. It is, so far, a very narrow opinion, and I would prefer we say something like

"as all the other CM coins presented so far may be"

 

Best regards

 

Steve

Hi Steve, I must confess that I don't see much if anything at all with any of the examples shown. I trust Uzdennikov's statement and gxseries's eagle eyes put together. I fully agree to BKB. Maybe gxseries can mark the undercoin features by photoshop to make us see? Thank you all, Sigi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Steve, I must confess that I don't see much if anything at all with any of the examples shown. I trust Uzdennikov's statement and gxseries's eagle eyes put together. I fully agree to BKB. Maybe gxseries can mark the undercoin features by photoshop to make us see? Thank you all, Sigi

For me, it is like looking at an inkblot test. I see things and then they are gone.

 

When gx mentioned a star by the scepter, I saw one when I looked at the space above the scepter near the tip of the eagle's wing. Then I looked again and there is no star there, just some pits in the surface of the coin which vaguely resemble a star. (Gx was talking about the other end of the scepter, but I misread his remark and looked in the wrong place, yet "saw" what I thought he meant.)

 

I am doubtful and think that the power of suggestion might be a factor in what I see and do not see. It's like trying to detect the subliminal content in an image. Is it really there, or is it just my imagination at work? :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grivna, your observational view on the star ABOVE the scepter is not wrong, in fact there is a star at that spot.

 

I believe I need to explain step by step of what I saw initially. First, do you believe that you see this:

 

iaspx2pf9_step1.png

 

Note, my paint skills is one of the worst so it will not fit exactly where it's supposed to be but you get the idea. The critical aspect of what I judge is the sharp points of the star, which is distinguishable with it's sharp /\ figure. This is particular true with the star that is hiding behind the crown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grivna, your observational view on the star ABOVE the scepter is not wrong, in fact there is a star at that spot.

 

I believe I need to explain step by step of what I saw initially. First, do you believe that you see this:

When I look at the coin in the positions you indicate, I see pitting which sometimes resembles the outline of a star, but at other times just looks like random pitting in the surface. The only thing which keeps me from saying that it is all imaginary is the fact that the groups of pits seem to have a regular spacing between them which reinforces the suggestion of flattened stars.

 

At other times, I think I see traces of the outline of the wings of an earlier eagle.

 

Maybe this is an overstrike, but I am not sure. I think my mind is trying to see patterns or impose some sort of familiar ordered interpretation on what I think might really be just random pits and color variations. Like when you look at a cloud and decide that this one looks like a person's face and that one looks like a tree.

 

If these are overstrikes, the undertype has been nearly obliterated. With most overstrikes from this period, there is little doubt because clear and unambiguous traces of the undertype just jump right out at you. That is not the case with these.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am with you on that. I see nothing there. Sometimes, however, before overstriking the coin was heated and the design was removed/flattened. This may be the case. I doubt the machinery changed between say 1763 and 1766, but the procedure could have. Thus, it may be an overstrike, but without any obvious traces of the undercoin. Got to check the edge, diameter and the thickness... I also think that in order to know for certain, it is a good idea to examine the coins and not their images.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am with you on that. I see nothing there. Sometimes, however, before overstriking the coin was heated and the design was removed/flattened. This may be the case. I doubt the machinery changed between say 1763 and 1766, but the procedure could have. Thus, it may be an overstrike, but without any obvious traces of the undercoin. Got to check the edge, diameter and the thickness... I also think that in order to know for certain, it is a good idea to examine the coins and not their images.

 

You have to wonder why would they bother? They clearly didn't care at the CPM mint (not too far away) or at the MM mint. There are plenty of spectacular overstrikes seen from 1763-1796 for those mints. At the CM mint there are also clear overstrikes seen in 1763 (as I've pointed out again and again and again).

 

Heating/Removing/Flattening....

If at CM, why not elsewhere?

If not elsewhere, why at CM?

 

I'd agree that checking coins 'in-person' is good but we can't always do that, and 20 sets of eyes may be better than 1.

Who ever bought all the Aalborg coins should help out here. (rarenum...I'm looking at you) :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BKB, most certainly if one has the original coin, a better analysis can be made. I definately would like to do a proper study but I don't have any to begin with. At prices of over 100 dollars per coin, this will make studies prohibitively expensive as I don't have the capita to invest in a batch of CM coins just for a study.

 

However that said, the importance of high resolution photos cannot be disregarded. As I come from a background study of geology, you must understand that most modern exploration is done by interpolating high resolution photos which is then confirmed by borehole drilling. When the cost of one borehole drilling can exceed 100,000usd, I'm sure most companies will want to target large ore bodies or high quality ores initially if possible. If done properly, high resolution photos can actually give a rough estimate of the reserves. How do you think mining companies, or let's say petroleum companies declare that they have a lifespan of x amount of years? :ninja: The technology is there, you have x-rays, CAT scan to scan what's in your body etc, just a matter of cost and how benefiting the study is. That said, I should attempt to do one but I don't have the software. Will post it in the community forum to see if anyone else has an idea of what I am talking about ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, may I ask a question?

 

It seems to me that the mintage from CM is significantly less from other mints. Why?

 

I am suspecting that the production level in CM is a lot slower than the the mints and this can possibly mean that the CM mint took a lot more care in producing their coins instead of mass crude striking like other mints. If I remember right, they were only actively striking 5 kopek coins. I'm not too sure if the coins with no mintmark were actually struck in CM. Perhaps it is of this reason why the CM mint was closed down in 1766-7 for its slow production rate.

 

My understanding is that the Sestroretsk mint had something that no other mint had and this is the very reason why this mint was chosen to experiment the 1771 Sestroretsk ruble. Otherwise why wouldn't St. Petersburg, that possibly had their technology transferred to Sestroretsk (as seen with the dies) experiment with the ruble when they are just a mere 50 kilometers away? :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gx, I know exactly what you are talking about. I am involved in commodity contracts and get to speek to Engineers and such about the reserves available to cover the contract quantity. However, what I pointed out is that some overstrikes are only detectable by the edge design and physical measurments. So far, I cannot see what you see on the photographs. It would be the best for you to check coins that people have in their collection. For instance, if you check my 1767 1767, I could confim whether what you see is there in person.

 

a1767cmtj4.jpg

 

b1767cmtj6.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all respect .. I see no evidence of overstrikes in the 1764 - 1766 CM series so far. Look at other mints and you will find ghost overstrikes also. Look on coins that you KNOW are NOT overstruck some will look overstruck. I find it hard to believe a coin in 1766 can be overstruck and not flattened or made larger in diameter. Just some thoughts from UGLY copper. mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone know what these parallel lines running through the eagles chest are?

 

Many CM 5Ks show this. I'm not sure why.

 

My first impression is that the coin, if overstruck on anything, is done on an old 172x krestovik piatak (which, of course, is not possible).

 

Correct. Not possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grivna, your observational view on the star ABOVE the scepter is not wrong, in fact there is a star at that spot.

 

I believe I need to explain step by step of what I saw initially. First, do you believe that you see this:

 

My first impression is that your stars separation is quite tight, they're closer than you'd expect on an actual PIII 10K. However this is only a quick visual comparison with known 10Ks...I'd actually have to start measuring angles before being able to say anything more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, may I ask a question?

 

It seems to me that the mintage from CM is significantly less from other mints. Why?

 

I am suspecting that the production level in CM is a lot slower than the the mints and this can possibly mean that the CM mint took a lot more care in producing their coins instead of mass crude striking like other mints. If I remember right, they were only actively striking 5 kopek coins. I'm not too sure if the coins with no mintmark were actually struck in CM. Perhaps it is of this reason why the CM mint was closed down in 1766-7 for its slow production rate.

 

My understanding is that the Sestroretsk mint had something that no other mint had and this is the very reason why this mint was chosen to experiment the 1771 Sestroretsk ruble. Otherwise why wouldn't St. Petersburg, that possibly had their technology transferred to Sestroretsk (as seen with the dies) experiment with the ruble when they are just a mere 50 kilometers away? :ninja:

All good questions. I wish I could read those Ukazes from the GM Corpus ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BKB, would there be any documents relating to the technology used in CM?

 

Didn't CM strike coins out of cannon metal or something? :ninja:

 

It is very very hard to finad anything on technology from the period. Nothing in GM I can think of. There are very few books on mint technology form the previous period, but I never saw those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...