Timofei Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 Hi, We have been discussing in Russian forum autenticity of 2 different coins. Darker coin with artificial toning is in question and I am comparing it with my coin. Any opinions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKB Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 This one in my database is listed as fake: Very similar to the first copin... Sorry no averse, but I think it was pronounced as fake by GIM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW Julian Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 Hi,We have been discussing in Russian forum autenticity of 2 different coins. Darker coin with artificial toning is in question and I am comparing it with my coin. Any opinions? The first piece is a rare variant of the 1762 St. Petersburg coinage with the letter G (in place of C) in the obverse legend. The dies appear to match known genuine specimens in my database; it therefore is probably genuine. The second also appears to be genuine. RWJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW Julian Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 This one in my database is listed as fake:Very similar to the first copin... Sorry no averse, but I think it was pronounced as fake by GIM. It is a definite fake and was published as such in RNS Journal 83 (winter 2006–2007). RWJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grivna1726 Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 The first piece is a rare variant of the 1762 St. Petersburg coinage with the letter G (in placeof C) in the obverse legend. Is this an error, or is it done deliberately? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loyal Citizen Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 The first piece is a rare variant of the 1762 St. Petersburg coinage with the letter G (in placeof C) in the obverse legend. The dies appear to match known genuine specimens in my database; it therefore is probably genuine. The second also appears to be genuine. RWJ Bob, thank you for your detailed opinion. The darker coin is from my collection. Regards, Alex Dubovsky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 BKB - wow, I am surprised that the picture you shown is a counterfeit. I am sure that you agree that the underlying image was originally a 1762 ruble as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW Julian Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 Is this an error, or is it done deliberately? This was done deliberately. The use of the letter G was ordinarily used at Moscow to mark dies for security purposes (i.e. to detect theft) and not St. Petersburg. Perhaps these obverse dies were meant for Moscow but for some reason used at St. Petersburg instead. RWJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW Julian Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 BKB - wow, I am surprised that the picture you shown is a counterfeit. I am sure that you agree that the underlying image was originally a 1762 ruble as well. It is definitely a counterfeit but interesting in that the forger used a silver rouble as an undertype although it is entirely possible that the undertype rouble is also a counterfeit. High-grade roubles bring extraordinary prices at present and the gamble of using an older rouble was probably considered one way of making the prospective buyer think of the piece as authentic. When this obverse die was published in the RNS Journal it was noted that the exact reason for determining it false would not be published so that the forger could not correct the mistake. RWJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timofei Posted June 23, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 it is entirely possible that the undertype rouble is also a counterfeit. High-grade roubles bring extraordinary prices at present and the gamble of using an older rouble was probably considered one way of making the prospective buyer think of the piece as authentic. I may not remember correctly, but I think the undercoin was original to keep the edge in consistance with the PIII period. Besides the edge is way more difficult to imitate. Alex, can you also publish the edge of your coin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grivna1726 Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 This was done deliberately. The use of the letter G was ordinarily used atMoscow to mark dies for security purposes (i.e. to detect theft) and not St. Petersburg. Perhaps these obverse dies were meant for Moscow but for some reason used at St. Petersburg instead. RWJ Thank you. I suspected this was deliberate, as in the case of the die varieties of the Peter III ММД poltina, as published in JRNS. Your reply raises another question: why was the use of die markers as a security measure to detect theft used at Moscow but not St. Petersburg? Or was it only the use of "G" which was restricted to Moscow and different markers were used at St. Petersburg? It seems unlikely that preventing theft would be a concern only in Moscow which suggests that other unknown (at least, to me) methods were employed at St. Petersburg. But why the difference between the two mints? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grivna1726 Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 The darker coin is from my collection. It is a beautifully struck example. The suggestion that it might be a fake was disturbing, because it certainly looks quite faithful to the style of the originals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loyal Citizen Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 It is a beautifully struck example. The suggestion that it might be a fake was disturbing, because it certainly looks quite faithful to the style of the originals. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loyal Citizen Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 ... Alex, can you also publish the edge of your coin? Well, there is nothing really special about the edge of the coin but, anyway, i'll try to make some photos of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW Julian Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 Thank you. I suspected this was deliberate, as in the case of the die varieties of the Peter III ММД poltina, as published in JRNS.Your reply raises another question: why was the use of die markers as a security measure to detect theft used at Moscow but not St. Petersburg? Or was it only the use of "G" which was restricted to Moscow and different markers were used at St. Petersburg? It seems unlikely that preventing theft would be a concern only in Moscow which suggests that other unknown (at least, to me) methods were employed at St. Petersburg. But why the difference between the two mints? You are correct in that St. Petersburg used different ways to detect theft. The easiest point of reference at St. Petersburg is on the reverse where the end of the scepter varies with relation to the lettering. The location of the mintmaster initials also varies as does the lettering near the orb. On the obverse the main difference is the location of the cross atop the crown of the Empress and the relationship to the lettering at the top. This was not always used and perhaps little changes were made to the bust which can no longer be determined due to wear. St. Petersburg did use the G on occasion; I have seen Ivan III roubles with this feature, for example. RWJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grivna1726 Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 You are correct in that St. Petersburg used different ways to detect theft. Theeasiest point of reference at St. Petersburg is on the reverse where the end of the scepter varies with relation to the lettering. The location of the mintmaster initials also varies as does the lettering near the orb. On the obverse the main difference is the location of the cross atop the crown of the Empress and the relationship to the lettering at the top. This was not always used and perhaps little changes were made to the bust which can no longer be determined due to wear. St. Petersburg did use the G on occasion; I have seen Ivan III roubles with this feature, for example. RWJ Thank you for this information. I had, until the article in JRNS on the Peter III poltinas, attributed these variations in punctuation (and positioning of letters to devices) to the lettering being punched into the die by hand (possibly by different diemakers), overlooking the possibility that it was deliberate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loyal Citizen Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 ...Alex, can you also publish the edge of your coin? Sorry, the best I could do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loyal Citizen Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 more 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loyal Citizen Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 more 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.