Jump to content
CoinPeople.com

authentification please


SOMMER
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

hello everybody ;)

I just asked you to confirm the authenticity of this coin

weight is correct 19,89 gr , diameter is 24 mm , i ve an other alexander 3 rouble , which is identic for size and weight.mintmark is identic too

but i know this year of minting is very rare( 3007 coins), can somebody confirm to me that i ve a real littel treasure (i know that the grade is not perfect,....)

thank you in advance

regards from france :ninja:

jean

PS if somebody is a good specialist, i could send it pictures of this coin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hello everybody

I just asked you to confirm the authenticity of this coin

weight is correct 19,89 gr , diameter is 24 mm , i ve an other alexander 3 rouble , which is identic for size and weight.mintmark is identic too

but i know this year of minting is very rare( 3007 coins), can somebody confirm to me that i ve a real littel treasure (i know that the grade is not perfect,....)

thank you in advance

regards from france

jean

PS if somebody is a good specialist, i could send it pictures of this coin

The figure of 3,007 is a fiscal year figure and the true number is perhaps well

over 100,000 or even much higher. It is believed that the 1894 roubles were

struck well into 1895 because the dies for Nicholas II were not yet ready.

 

RWJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RWJ

 

KRAUSE catalog gives a market price for an XF 1894 ruble coin as $650. So after reading your reply I think it is not realistic per your opinion? Is it?

I do not have an opinion on the value of this coin except that printed values nowadays tend to

be obsolete about ten minutes after the catalogue is issued.

 

RWJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the mintage figure for 1894 rouble is 3.007 million coins not 3007 coins

On the other hand the 1893 50 kopeeks, is listed at 4000 coins, but in practice they pop up all the time?! I'd guess they minted a bunch in 1894?

The official mintage in fiscal year 1894 is 3,007 as was stated above. You have

perhaps confused the comma (,) used in the United States with the period (.) used

in Europe for numbers larger than 999.

 

One million is

in the U.S.: 1,000,000

in Europe: 1.000.000

The arrangement is reversed for decimals.

 

The figure of 3,007 is known from several original sources, including the United States Mint

Report for 1895, using material furnished by the Imperial Mint. There were also 3,000,007

ten kopeck pieces minted during the fiscal year 1894, which also may be the source of

confusion. Page 79 of RNS Journal 73 carries this mint report.

 

As to the 1893 and 1894 fifty kopecks the 1894 turns up far more often than the 1893 and

the 1894s were probably also struck heavily in 1895. I have not seen all that many 1893s,

however.

 

RWJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The official mintage in fiscal year 1894 is 3,007 as was stated above. You have

perhaps confused the comma (,) used in the United States with the period (.) used

in Europe for numbers larger than 999.

 

One million is

in the U.S.: 1,000,000

in Europe: 1.000.000

The arrangement is reversed for decimals.

 

The figure of 3,007 is known from several original sources, including the United States Mint

Report for 1895, using material furnished by the Imperial Mint. There were also 3,000,007

ten kopeck pieces minted during the fiscal year 1894, which also may be the source of

confusion. Page 79 of RNS Journal 73 carries this mint report.

 

As to the 1893 and 1894 fifty kopecks the 1894 turns up far more often than the 1893 and

the 1894s were probably also struck heavily in 1895. I have not seen all that many 1893s,

however.

 

RWJ

 

You are correct, I looked it up in my old Rylov and Sobolin which is handy due to the compact size, but they've got typos. They actually list numbers in millions of coins and it has 3.007 for 1894.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not have an opinion on the value of this coin except that printed values nowadays tend to

be obsolete about ten minutes after the catalogue is issued.

 

RWJ

i ve the same informations ( of course with krause)

it s really a surprise, they could make a mistake concerning the mintage, but they gave a very high price?I can t unerstand it?if they made a failure when they printed the mintage,why did they indicate this value?I m not particularly interested in the value,but on the rarity...

Thank you for all your answerw again, it s really interesting to discover that a lot of cois were minted in 1895

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i ve the same informations ( of course with krause)

it s really a surprise, they could make a mistake concerning the mintage, but they gave a very high price?I can t unerstand it?if they made a failure when they printed the mintage,why did they indicate this value?I m not particularly interested in the value,but on the rarity...

Thank you for all your answerw again, it s really interesting to discover that a lot of cois were minted in 1895

There are some problems facing cataloguers when prices are set. Because

the 3,007 figure has frequently been published, and is technically correct

as a fiscal year number, many collectors assume, wrongly, that this mintage

applies to all coins dated 1894. This drives up the price.

 

Alexander III portrait roubles are popular with collectors and, in particular, with

those who collector by type. 1894 being the last year of this type it becomes

more popular than otherwise would be the case.

 

RWJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some problems facing cataloguers when prices are set. Because

the 3,007 figure has frequently been published, and is technically correct

as a fiscal year number, many collectors assume, wrongly, that this mintage

applies to all coins dated 1894. This drives up the price.

 

Alexander III portrait roubles are popular with collectors and, in particular, with

those who collector by type. 1894 being the last year of this type it becomes

more popular than otherwise would be the case.

 

RWJ

thank you, you are totally right, but In which book or other sites could we find exact and total mint concerning russian coins?I bought the uzdenikov as i aid, but it is really the truth?i try to obtain a maximum of informations,but i begin , and i Imagine that i will often ask you concerning some coins,i thank you in advance

Regards from france :ninja:

jean

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The figure of 3,007 is known from several original sources, including the United States Mint

Report for 1895, using material furnished by the Imperial Mint.

 

RWJ, perhaps this might seem a stupid question, but my curiosity is aroused.

 

Why did the US Mint Report include figures for coins minted by Russia? I can understand why the report would include information for domestic coin production, but why figures for Russian coins would be routinely included puzzles me.

 

Is (or was) it normal practice for the US Mint to report on coinage issued by other countries and if so, why? Does (or did) the Russian Mint similarly report figures for coins issued in the USA?

 

Thanks for any light you can shed on this matter for me. :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RWJ, perhaps this might seem a stupid question, but my curiosity is aroused.

Why did the US Mint Report include figures for coins minted by Russia? I can understand why the report would include information for domestic coin production, but why figures for Russian coins would be routinely included puzzles me

Is (or was) it normal practice for the US Mint to report on coinage issued by other countries and if so, why? Does (or did) the Russian Mint similarly report figures for coins issued in the USA?

Thanks for any light you can shed on this matter for me.

This practice dates back to 1873 and the ongoing crisis in the value of silver in the

United States. Henry R. Linderman became director of the mint under the act of

February 1873 and he was very interested in the world supply of gold and silver. In

line with this he began sending out questionaires to foreign governments about their

monetary system, mining, and coinage. These replies were printed in the report of

the mint director and were intended to provide a guide not only for those in the United

States but in foreign countries as well. As a general rule minor coinages of base metal

were not included in the reports but if the foreign government chose to do so then they

were printed by the mint director.

 

The US Mint director also requested information on the applicable laws and reprinted them

when possible.

 

The British and French mints also published reports but in these cases it was merely a

report of actual coinage and not a detailed discussion of the monetary system and mining

outputs.

 

In the case of Russia prior to 1917 there existed a bulletin of statistics, published in French

and Russian, which reported on a variety of matters, including the annual fiscal coinage report.

The Russian authorities prior to 1917 were rather open about their monetary system but the

St. Petersburg Mint did not publish reports.

 

RWJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This practice dates back to 1873 and the ongoing crisis in the value of silver in the

United States. Henry R. Linderman became director of the mint under the act of

February 1873 and he was very interested in the world supply of gold and silver. In

line with this he began sending out questionaires to foreign governments about their

monetary system, mining, and coinage. These replies were printed in the report of

the mint director and were intended to provide a guide not only for those in the United

States but in foreign countries as well. As a general rule minor coinages of base metal

were not included in the reports but if the foreign government chose to do so then they

were printed by the mint director.

 

The US Mint director also requested information on the applicable laws and reprinted them

when possible.

 

The British and French mints also published reports but in these cases it was merely a

report of actual coinage and not a detailed discussion of the monetary system and mining

outputs.

 

In the case of Russia prior to 1917 there existed a bulletin of statistics, published in French

and Russian, which reported on a variety of matters, including the annual fiscal coinage report.

The Russian authorities prior to 1917 were rather open about their monetary system but the

St. Petersburg Mint did not publish reports.

 

RWJ

 

Thank you for your most helpful and informative reply.

 

Now it makes sense.

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...