Edge "varieties" of 15 rouble gold coins (1897)

[bobh]

V.V. Kazakov lists (and illustrates) three different obverse die varieties of the large head; one is with "OCC" under the neck (Kaz. 63), and two with "CC" (Kaz. 64/65 and 66 respectively).

 

Of the two varieties 64 and 65, 64 has the normal edge which looks like this:

(А ‧ Г)

The edge of Kaz. 65 (according to him, the rarest of the four) looks like Kaz. 64, but without the dot.

 

So the other day, I was taking pictures of some of my Russian gold coins with my new "toy" (Nikon D60 with 105mm f/2.8 Nikkor macro lens -- also used to take the picture of my 1910-EB poltina in the titlebar competition). I have two of these 15 rouble coins. The first is the "OCC" variety, with a normal edge. The second is Kazakov 66 (A3, the second of the "CC" varieties) but has an edge where the dot is just barely showing. Here is a photo of that edge:

 

 

The dot (or the place where it should be) is practically invisible to the naked eye and only shows up on the picture as a little mark or scratch.

 

I find it hard to believe that this is an actual variety as opposed to a simple mint error (i.e., the little "nipple" on the edging device where the dot was struck simply broke off). When the dot is well struck, it is very noticeable, but depth of strike does vary considerably among normally produced coins.

 

What is a little irritating is that of all the references I have seen, Kazakov also categorically denies the existence of the 1897 Brussels pattern rouble "birdies", or ticks on the edge, and states that the birdies are merely the result of deformed edging devices. His is also the only reference I have seen which even mentions the edge varieties with/without dot, much less lists them as varieties in their own right. So why does he raise the "edge without dot" error (IMHO) to the status of a true variety? To be fair, he also lists the Brussels pattern edges as varieties, although I have seen some 1897-** roubles with broken stars which weren't classified as patterns (I even own one of these myself; picked it up on eBay for $20 or so).

 

Does anyone else have a picture of the 15 rouble edge without dot for comparison? If the distance between the letters were different for the case with vs. without dot, it would speak for the claim that it is a true variety. All else being equal, I would think it is merely an error, not a variety (the fact that some collectors obviously pay premiums for it is nonetheless quite irrelevant).

[lennysky]

Sorry, mine is encapsulated in MS 61

 

V.V. Kazakov lists (and illustrates) three different obverse die varieties of the large head; one is with "OCC" under the neck (Kaz. 63), and two with "CC" (Kaz. 64/65 and 66 respectively).

 

Of the two varieties 64 and 65, 64 has the normal edge which looks like this:

(А ‧ Г)

The edge of Kaz. 65 (according to him, the rarest of the four) looks like Kaz. 64, but without the dot.

 

So the other day, I was taking pictures of some of my Russian gold coins with my new "toy" (Nikon D60 with 105mm f/2.8 Nikkor macro lens -- also used to take the picture of my 1910-EB poltina in the titlebar competition). I have two of these 15 rouble coins. The first is the "OCC" variety, with a normal edge. The second is Kazakov 66 (A3, the second of the "CC" varieties) but has an edge where the dot is just barely showing. Here is a photo of that edge:

 

 

The dot (or the place where it should be) is practically invisible to the naked eye and only shows up on the picture as a little mark or scratch.

 

I find it hard to believe that this is an actual variety as opposed to a simple mint error (i.e., the little "nipple" on the edging device where the dot was struck simply broke off). When the dot is well struck, it is very noticeable, but depth of strike does vary considerably among normally produced coins.

 

What is a little irritating is that of all the references I have seen, Kazakov also categorically denies the existence of the 1897 Brussels pattern rouble "birdies", or ticks on the edge, and states that the birdies are merely the result of deformed edging devices. His is also the only reference I have seen which even mentions the edge varieties with/without dot, much less lists them as varieties in their own right. So why does he raise the "edge without dot" error (IMHO) to the status of a true variety? To be fair, he also lists the Brussels pattern edges as varieties, although I have seen some 1897-** roubles with broken stars which weren't classified as patterns (I even own one of these myself; picked it up on eBay for $20 or so).

 

Does anyone else have a picture of the 15 rouble edge without dot for comparison? If the distance between the letters were different for the case with vs. without dot, it would speak for the claim that it is a true variety. All else being equal, I would think it is merely an error, not a variety (the fact that some collectors obviously pay premiums for it is nonetheless quite irrelevant).

[bobh]

Sorry, mine is encapsulated in MS 61

I'm sorry, too! At least NGC has edge-viewable slabs nowadays ... but what if the mintmaster initials are exactly beneath one of the four supports?

[lennysky]

Nothing to do but to destroy the capsule.

 

I'm sorry, too! At least NGC has edge-viewable slabs nowadays ... but what if the mintmaster initials are exactly beneath one of the four supports?

[Thee_Immortal_One]

I checked my 15 Rubles and one shows a prominent period between the initials and the other shows a very light/soft period (also high).

[SOMMER]

hello everybody

i looked my 2 coins of 15 roubles ( one big with 3 letters under the neck and one little head with to letters under the neck )the dot is present on the 2 coins....sorry ,i can t help you

regards from france

jean