BKB Posted September 1, 2008 Report Share Posted September 1, 2008 There is a coin(s) that puzzles me. There is a series of coins that are made with the same obverse die (eagle side) which is paired with at least 5 different reverses (portraits). All of these are very rare (from 1 to 6 known to me specimens of each die pair, and I researched it for years) The reverse die variations are minute, but obvious. It is a ruble of Anna. (Not the one I showed before) What could be the explanation of that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted September 1, 2008 Report Share Posted September 1, 2008 Perhaps a problem with the dies, causing premature failure, resulting in very few strikes for these specific variants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKB Posted September 1, 2008 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2008 Perhaps a problem with the dies, causing premature failure, resulting in very few strikes for these specific variants. Thank you for reply. However, do you believe that it is likely to have 5 dies fail after only a few strikes, while the averse die is intact and shows no diecracks, etc.? Pussible, but I do not think it is likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted September 1, 2008 Report Share Posted September 1, 2008 No. Not likely at all. Just throwing it out there. A possible problem with the portrait? An unhappy Empress? An unhappy Mintmaster? Which out of the many Anna Portraits are you studying? I personally think that, while none of Anna's Numismatic portraits are flattering, the Hedlinger and Dimitriev copy, is the most appealing to the eye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennysky Posted September 1, 2008 Report Share Posted September 1, 2008 I agree about the portrait's attractiveness and still looking for a reasonably priced ones from 1737-40 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKB Posted September 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2008 No. Not likely at all. Just throwing it out there. A possible problem with the portrait? An unhappy Empress? An unhappy Mintmaster? Which out of the many Anna Portraits are you studying? I personally think that, while none of Anna's Numismatic portraits are flattering, the Hedlinger and Dimitriev copy, is the most appealing to the eye. You got it :-) That is a Dmitriev copy of Hedliger dated 1737. I have been trying to put my thoughts on paper for 3 years now, but I am not convinced that my theory is correct. I would like to get a few more opinions before I go into more detail... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted September 2, 2008 Report Share Posted September 2, 2008 Very interesting. I hope you can put something together. Looking fwd to an RNS Journal article perhaps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted September 2, 2008 Report Share Posted September 2, 2008 I probably have no idea what I'm talking about but isn't there a possibility of something simple such as trial strikes of different designs were presented to the Empress. She didn't like them and hence not many were struck? Kind of reminds me of the 1835 Family ruble story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKB Posted September 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2008 I probably have no idea what I'm talking about but isn't there a possibility of something simple such as trial strikes of different designs were presented to the Empress. She didn't like them and hence not many were struck? Kind of reminds me of the 1835 Family ruble story. Ok, I think more info is required. Here is the story. The portrait design was a regular Dmitriev copy which was used on all Moscow rubles from 1737 to 1740. The die variations are very minute -- size of cross, dots/no dots before/after the ledgend, etc. Although, you may have a point because the design of the eagle is different from the previous years -- an SPB type eagle. If we accept the theory of presentation of an obverse die, why then pair it with 5 different reverse dies? All in all, your theory was the one given to me by a serious Anna collector from Russia. At the time, I only knew of the 2 die pair variations (Polujko #'s 478 & 495); moreover, Polujko only rates it as "!" with the highest importance rating of "!!!", thus it sounded somewhat plausible -- a trial run like 1835 1 1/2 where the die failed midrun and they had to use another reverse to complete it. Now, however, I found 3 more die pair variations, as well as, I realized that except for one die pair variety which you could trace to about 6+ sales (including internet) in the past 100 years, the other die pair varieties made from unique to 2 +/- appearances in the past 100+ years, which make those coins pretty rare, to say the least. The coin is not in Smithsonian. Was not sold as part of any major collection except for Hermes Sale. Possibly appeared in one of Kopylov's fixed price list (impossible to confirm due to no plate) Even of the 1835 1 1/2, there were 35 or 36 coins struck, and they appear way more often than these Anna coins. All this, at least in my mind, makes the "presentation theory" unlikely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKB Posted September 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2008 Very interesting. I hope you can put something together. Looking fwd to an RNS Journal article perhaps? No article any time soon -- the info is not properly organized in my head yet. + I need to find a likely explanation of the 5 die pair oddity, and see if it fits my theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW Julian Posted September 2, 2008 Report Share Posted September 2, 2008 There is a coin(s) that puzzles me. There is a series of coins that are made with the same obverse die (eagle side) which is paired with at least 5 different reverses (portraits). All of these are very rare (from 1 to 6 known to me specimens of each die pair, and I researched it for years) The reverse die variations are minute, but obvious. It is a ruble of Anna. (Not the one I showed before) What could be the explanation of that? The use of one eagle die (which I consider the reverse) with several portrait (obverse) dies is not all that surprising. It may simply be that the eagle die was especially well prepared (hardened) or came from a batch of better steel while the portrait dies were poorly prepared or came from lower-quality steel. It is odd that so many portrait dies failed but I have no doubt that a careful study of Imperial dies of the 18th century will find similar examples. RWJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 BKB, thanks for your explanation. I'm not too sure if these two points that may or may not be considered as a factor: 1. It's rather unfair to judge the rarity of such varieties as there is no proper documentation made in the past. Even if any are to be attempted, there is a high possibility that a certain percentage of them are melted down. The Family ruble, if I read the history of it right, on the other hand were struck for special occasions and hence a good documentation and survival rate is well known. 2. I still believe there is a possibility of presentation / trial pieces. Given that the history of large silver coinages in Russia is short, about 20 years or so, there might have been some apprentices working on it which were then corrected by their masters. Isn't it rather odd that NONE of Anna Petrovna's rubles have any list mintmaster marks on them? That's something I noticed when I read Uzdenikov's list of mintmasters and saw a large period of time missing where mintmasters didn't mark their designs. If this is true, there might be a possibility of more examples of Catherine I varieties as well but I'm just guessing at best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKB Posted September 5, 2008 Author Report Share Posted September 5, 2008 Thank you for your input. Will report if I find anything on the topic that clears up the situation. 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.