BKB Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 Finally was able to replace my 1800 em 2kop with a decent specimen. Although it has some corrosion, it is much better than what I had for years. For some reason, that was the toughest date to find in a decent shape. If anyone else collects Paul Petrovich, what do you think is the toughest date/mm in a decent condition? (besides small denominations of 1799, 1800, & 1801 :-) ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW Julian Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 Finally was able to replace my 1800 em 2kop with a decent specimen. Although it has some corrosion, it is much better than what I had for years. For some reason, that was the toughest date to find in a decent shape. If anyone else collects Paul Petrovich, what do you think is the toughest date/mm in a decent condition? (besides small denominations of 1799, 1800, & 1801 Nice overdate, 1800/179–. RWJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 Unreal grade... Looks like a rat or some small pest ate a small chunk of the UNC coin to see if it's tasty... ;) I think I would have done so too. Nice overdate too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKB Posted October 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 Unreal grade... Looks like a rat or some small pest ate a small chunk of the UNC coin to see if it's tasty... ;) I think I would have done so too. Nice overdate too I do not mind the missing chunk as much as the corrosion on the cypher side. The overdate I am not 100% sure about. There are some metal flows inside the "8" and "0" but no clear trace of any removed numbers are visible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW Julian Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 I do not mind the missing chunk as much as the corrosion on the cypher side. The overdate I am not 100% sure about. There are some metal flows inside the "8" and "0" but no clear trace of any removed numbers are visible. I consider this a definite overdate. The first figure 0, for example, has part of the figure 7 at the upper right. There is, however, some question about the final figure 0. The overdate might be 1800/1799 but I think it more likely to be 1800/179–, the last digit not having been added when the new date of 1800 was made. In short, a very nice coin with the added attraction of being a clear overdate. RWJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKB Posted October 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.