Autheniticity of a Novodel?

[alexbq2]

I just got this coin. I like it. It does not thud against the table, and gives me a good vibe I'm about 80+ % convinced that it's kosher. But I have not handled too many novodels. I will very much appreciate your learned opinions.

 

P.S. The edge looks alright.

 

 

[bobh]

I just got this coin. I like it. It does not thud against the table, and gives me a good vibe I'm about 80+ % convinced that it's kosher. But I have not handled too many novodels. I will very much appreciate your learned opinions.

 

P.S. The edge looks alright.

I'm not sure ... the surfaces have a funny "cast" look to them. Can you post a picture of the edge? Usually there will be a casting mark somewhere ... maybe it was filed away and then there would be filing marks.

[RW Julian]

I just got this coin. I like it. It does not thud against the table, and gives me a good vibe I'm about 80+ % convinced that it's kosher. But I have not handled too many novodels. I will very much appreciate your learned opinions.

P.S. The edge looks alright.

Including the present piece, I have 10 illustrated specimens in my data base, all

believed to be originals. The RNS Journal has not published any fakes to date.

Your obverse does not match any of the other 9 pieces but the reverse appears

to be the same as 2 of them. (Due to the wear/corrosion on your piece the match

is not certain.)

 

Your piece is somewhat odd in that the obverse (horse side) is better struck than

the reverse. On the other hand this may be corrosion or wear on just the one side.

 

Steve Moulding has a better data base of copper than I do and perhaps he can add

something to this discussion.

 

RWJ

[alexbq2]

Thank you for your help!

 

The weight is 27.51 grams. Here's the edge, there's something about it - possibly filing?

[bobh]

Thank you for your help!

 

The weight is 27.51 grams. Here's the edge, there's something about it - possibly filing?

I can't tell, it actually looks OK. But I'm still not sure about the surfaces. Is the weight and the diameter OK? I would think that novodels would be fairly consistent in weight and dimensions as opposed to pre-Catherine II regular coins.

[lennysky]

I can't tell, it actually looks OK. But I'm still not sure about the surfaces. Is the weight and the diameter OK? I would think that novodels would be fairly consistent in weight and dimensions as opposed to pre-Catherine II regular coins.

 

I am not 100% sure, but the gut feeling tells me there is something suspicious about this coin. The details are too sharp for the original.

[alexbq2]

I can't tell, it actually looks OK. But I'm still not sure about the surfaces. Is the weight and the diameter OK? I would think that novodels would be fairly consistent in weight and dimensions as opposed to pre-Catherine II regular coins.

 

Good question! I looked through Bitkin, and he lists the weight for only one of 1761 4 kopeek novodels (H604, page 598). The listed weight is 26.51, mine is at 27.51. I'll say close enough.

[alexbq2]

I am not 100% sure, but the gut feeling tells me there is something suspicious about this coin. The details are too sharp for the original.

 

Shouldn't a Novodel have sharp details?

[marv]

I am not 100% sure, but the gut feeling tells me there is something suspicious about this coin. The details are too sharp for the original.

 

I'm no expert, but virtually all the copper novodels I have seen in auctions have been well preserved. That stands to reason as they were created for and owned by collectors. They didn't usually circulate, accumulate heavy marks or heavy deposits like the pictured coin has. Again, that's not to say that it couldn't happen. I've found that I can usually pick out the copper novodels at first glance in an auction, just based on preservation, especially for the 18th century dates. It's less certain for 19th and later coins as there were more collectors around to preserve regular circulating coinage as well as proofs and novodels. A 1762 novodel is usually found in beautiful shape, whereas an original is usually not, at least that's been my experience.

 

Perhaps your coin is a counterfeit that has been artificially darkened to make it harder to identify? Or of course it could be completely genuine.

 

You've got the experts here though to help you figure it out.

 

Marv Finnley

[alexbq2]

Perhaps your coin is a counterfeit that has been artificially darkened to make it harder to identify? Or of course it could be completely genuine.

 

You've got the experts here though to help you figure it out.

 

Marv Finnley

 

But there is no original 1761 4 kopeeks

[mummytrol]

But there is no original 1761 4 kopeeks

Hello, dear friends! By my opinion, real 1761 edge should look something like that. Thank you. Mummytrol:).

[alexbq2]

Hello, dear friends! By my opinion, real 1761 edge should look something like that. Thank you. Mummytrol:).

 

Could you please explain why? I doubt that this Novodel would have been made in 1788. And would they have used the same edging for 5 and 2 kopeek pieces?

[lennysky]

I've heard Mr. Bakken is compiling a book on fakes and he may have some information on such well made fakes.

[mummytrol]

Could you please explain why? I doubt that this Novodel would have been made in 1788. And would they have used the same edging for 5 and 2 kopeek pieces?

I think - yes. The net is much wider. Take a good look.

[alexbq2]

I think - yes. The net is much wider. Take a good look.

 

I would guess that such a novodel would have been made in the beginning of the 19th century.

 

As for the wideness of netting on pyataks, I believe that there are many variations in the net spacing even in the coins from the same mint. I imagine that most Novodels were made in St. Petersburg and not in Ekaterinburg.

[mummytrol]

I would guess that such a novodel would have been made in the beginning of the 19th century.

 

As for the wideness of netting on pyataks, I believe that there are many variations in the net spacing even in the coins from the same mint. I imagine that most Novodels were made in St. Petersburg and not in Ekaterinburg.

Dear Alex! Coin looks great, even if it not an oficial novodel( I meen from the russian mint). They say, that in 19th century russian mint made many novodels of rare russian coins. Maybe it is one of them.

[alexbq2]

Dear Alex! Coin looks great, even if it not an oficial novodel( I meen from the russian mint). They say, that in 19th century russian mint made many novodels of rare russian coins. Maybe it is one of them.

 

Dear mummytrol,

 

Thank you for the high praise! I believe that you are comfortable with reading Russian. I think that you may find the following excerpt from an article by Dr. Uzdenikov interesting. I do apologize to the forum members, who can't read Russian, for not providing a translation. If anyone is very interested in the contents of this passage, I will attempt a loose translation.

[alexbq2]

Here are a few of the images that illustrate that article:

[marv]

Dear mummytrol,

 

Thank you for the high praise! I believe that you are comfortable with reading Russian. I think that you may find the following excerpt from an article by Dr. Uzdenikov interesting. I do apologize to the forum members, who can't read Russian, for not providing a translation. If anyone is very interested in the contents of this passage, I will attempt a loose translation.

 

I would be very interested in this article. Unfortunately, with two years of Russian quite a few years ago, I can't quite get through it without spending a great deal of time with my dictionary, so if you have the time, yes, I would appreciate a rough translation.

 

Thanks very much,

Marv Finnley

[alexbq2]

I would be very interested in this article. Unfortunately, with two years of Russian quite a few years ago, I can't quite get through it without spending a great deal of time with my dictionary, so if you have the time, yes, I would appreciate a rough translation.

 

Thanks very much,

Marv Finnley

 

The article is titled "Novodels of 3 copper coins from 1760". I will try to relate the general thesis of this article.

 

On the 31st of October 1760 duke Shuvaloff presented to the senat his proposal "On restriking 16-rouble copper coins to the 32-rouble". The proposal was accompanied by the full set of pattern coins dated 1760. Most likely these were prepared on the St. Petersburg mint, which begging in the middle of the 18th century became the main base of all pattern work. To this day only 2 of these coins are known - a 2 kopeek piece in the Hermitage collection, and 1 kopeek in the Smithsonian. Apart from these 2 originals there are also 3 known coins dated 1760: 10 kopeeks, 4 kopeeks and a denga. These 3 coins however are unedged and struck only on 1 side, they are all missing the obverse. Dr. Uzdennikov goes on deducing that these 3 coins are Novodels struck with aged (corroded and in case of the 10 kop cracked) but original dies.

 

The segment that I presented in the photograph is as follows:

"The above listed signs allow with full certainty to attribute the single sided copper 1760 coins as novodels. But, if these coins are Novodels, why did the mint not prepare new dies for the missing sides of these coins, or even cut completely new dies for all coins in this set. Such duplication of dies for novodels was not uncommon for the mint, for the novodel set of 1757 coins the mint prepared 2 to 4 obverse dies for each coin in the 5 coin set. Instead the mint created several sets of fantasy dies for the 32 rouble series dated 1761"

 

Dr. Uzdenikov goes on to stipulate that the refusal of the authorities to create a new set of dies dated 1760 is a further proof that the original 1760 dies still existed, and were used to strike the 3 novodels.

[STEVE MOULDING]

Steve Moulding has a better data base of copper than I do and perhaps he can add

something to this discussion.

 

RWJ

 

Gold, medals, wire coins, Jefimoks, and novodels. Very few of any of them in my database. I really can't say anything about this example; novodels really aren't my thing.

 

Steve

[RW Julian]

The article is titled "Novodels of 3 copper coins from 1760". I will try to relate the general thesis of this article.

 

On the 31st of October 1760 duke Shuvaloff presented to the senat his proposal "On restriking 16-rouble copper coins to the 32-rouble". The proposal was accompanied by the full set of pattern coins dated 1760. Most likely these were prepared on the St. Petersburg mint, which begging in the middle of the 18th century became the main base of all pattern work. To this day only 2 of these coins are known - a 2 kopeek piece in the Hermitage collection, and 1 kopeek in the Smithsonian. Apart from these 2 originals there are also 3 known coins dated 1760: 10 kopeeks, 4 kopeeks and a denga. These 3 coins however are unedged and struck only on 1 side, they are all missing the obverse. Dr. Uzdennikov goes on deducing that these 3 coins are Novodels struck with aged (corroded and in case of the 10 kop cracked) but original dies.

 

The segment that I presented in the photograph is as follows:

"The above listed signs allow with full certainty to attribute the single sided copper 1760 coins as novodels. But, if these coins are Novodels, why did the mint not prepare new dies for the missing sides of these coins, or even cut completely new dies for all coins in this set. Such duplication of dies for novodels was not uncommon for the mint, for the novodel set of 1757 coins the mint prepared 2 to 4 obverse dies for each coin in the 5 coin set. Instead the mint created several sets of fantasy dies for the 32 rouble series dated 1761"

 

Dr. Uzdenikov goes on to stipulate that the refusal of the authorities to create a new set of dies dated 1760 is a further proof that the original 1760 dies still existed, and were used to strike the 3 novodels.

At least one of the 1760 dies was saved for use in 1762. A 10 kopeck piece of that year exists as an overdate (1762/0).

 

RWJ

[alexbq2]

At least one of the 1760 dies was saved for use in 1762. A 10 kopeck piece of that year exists as an overdate (1762/0).

 

RWJ

 

Very interesting! It would not be the cracked die that is mentioned by Uzdenikov, so multiple dies were cut for the pattern sets?

[RW Julian]

Very interesting! It would no be the cracked die that is mentioned by Uzdenikov, so multiple dies were cut for the pattern sets?

It is likely that several sets of dies were made in 1760 and then used in

1762 after the date was changed. Perhaps the cracked die is one that

was saved from the 1762 usage and then cleaned up to strike novodels.

 

RWJ

[mummytrol]

It is likely that several sets of dies were made in 1760 and then used in

1762 after the date was changed. Perhaps the cracked die is one that

was saved from the 1762 usage and then cleaned up to strike novodels.

 

RWJ

I do not understand, what is the purpose of this discussion about?????