1762 E2 roubles

[Timofei]

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?

[BKB]

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.

[RW Julian]

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

[RW Julian]

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

[grivna1726]

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.

 

Is this an error, or is it done deliberately?

[Loyal Citizen]

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

 

Bob,

thank you for your detailed opinion. The darker coin is from my collection.

 

Regards, Alex Dubovsky

[gxseries]

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.

[RW Julian]

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

[RW Julian]

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

[Timofei]

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?

[grivna1726]

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

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?

[grivna1726]

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.

[Loyal Citizen]

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.

[Loyal Citizen]

... 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.

[RW Julian]

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

[grivna1726]

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

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.

[Loyal Citizen]

...Alex, can you also publish the edge of your coin?

Sorry, the best I could do.

[Loyal Citizen]

more 1

[Loyal Citizen]

more 2