1729 Rouble

[one-kuna]

Many thanks to everybody who participated in the discussion and took the trouble of investigating this coin. I decided to return it to Gorny & Mosch and the auctioneer agreed to refund in full.

There were two main reasons that formed my decision.

1) The coin in such a high grade could hardly avoid in 190 years important coin collections or sales. Therefore it should have been listed in recognized numismatic sources, but the exact match was not found in the Grand Duke's or other important catalogs. It is not Bitkin 112 (reverse does not match), as advertised in Gorny 173 catalog. It is also not Petrunin 146.3, since some letters and crowns are slightly different, though rather close.

2) My decision was made when I was shown another very dubious rouble struck with exactly the same dies, including the same defect at letter M on reverse.

http://avscoins.com/1.jpg

 

I might be wrong in letting go a nice rare coin, if it proves to be authentic, but I'd rather be wrong on the side of caution.

 

Does Gorny provide any reasons or specific details for doubts on this piece?

[Andrey5]

Does Gorny provide any reasons or specific details for doubts on this piece?

No, they didn't. They are returning this coin as well as lot 8177 looking very similar (same defect on M on the reverse) to the consignor.

[RW Julian]

Many thanks to everybody who participated in the discussion and took the trouble of investigating this coin. I decided to return it to Gorny & Mosch and the auctioneer agreed to refund in full.

There were two main reasons that formed my decision.

1) The coin in such a high grade could hardly avoid in 190 years important coin collections or sales. Therefore it should have been listed in recognized numismatic sources, but the exact match was not found in the Grand Duke's or other important catalogs. It is not Bitkin 112 (reverse does not match), as advertised in Gorny 173 catalog. It is also not Petrunin 146.3, since some letters and crowns are slightly different, though rather close.

2) My decision was made when I was shown another very dubious rouble struck with exactly the same dies, including the same defect at letter M on reverse.

http://avscoins.com/1.jpg

 

I might be wrong in letting go a nice rare coin, if it proves to be authentic, but I'd rather be wrong on the side of caution.

I may be missing something but I do not see any “defect” at the letter M.

 

RWJ

[one-kuna]

I may be missing something but I do not see any “defect” at the letter M.

 

RWJ

 

it is "exfoliation" defect in an area of letter "M" - the author of this post wrote in russian forum staraya moneta, and because of this defect he decieded return this coin back to the auction house, he motivated that letter M defect is a crucial reason for him to return this coin; this coin was discussed on two other russian forums and there were more than a dozen others supportive reasons against its authencity besides above one; but he choosed only this one as last one to make his final decision; both russian forums have better and large picture...

[RW Julian]

it is "exfoliation" defect in an area of letter "M" - the author of this post wrote in russian forum staraya moneta, and because of this defect he decieded return this coin back to the auction house, he motivated that letter M defect is a crucial reason for him to return this coin; this coin was discussed on two other russian forums and there were more than a dozen others supportive reasons against its authencity besides above one; but he choosed only this one as last one to make his final decision; both russian forums have better and large picture...

Please define “exfoliation” as it applies to this coin. Perhaps this is the same as

the U.S. numismatic term of “bifurcation.”

 

RWJ

[one-kuna]

Please define “exfoliation” as it applies to this coin. Perhaps this is the same as

the U.S. numismatic term of “bifurcation.”

 

RWJ

 

whoever writes russian-english dictionary - there always discrepancies

 

exfoliation according my disctionary is: flaking away / peeling

 

bifurcation according a large russian-english dictionary I have is someting like opposite of merge - like one road becomes double ahead

 

please note - i am not an author of my russian-english dictionary

[RW Julian]

whoever writes russian-english dictionary - there always discrepancies

exfoliation according my disctionary is: flaking away / peeling

bifurcation according a large russian-english dictionary I have is someting like opposite of merge - like one road becomes double ahead

please note - i am not an author of my russian-english dictionary

I understand that exfoliation means flaking or peeling away but I see no evidence of this

on the letter M for the coin in question. I do see bifurcation, however, which is normal

on large silver coins of this period.

 

Bifurcation is the situation where the bottom of a letter (near the edge of the coin) splits in two.

This was the result of insufficient striking power by the press at the edge of the coin. A well-

struck piece might not have the bifurcation. In some cases the Russian mints used punches

for numerals that appear to be bifurcated but actually are not; this is most easily seen in the

figure 1 of the date on piataks of 1763–1796.

 

RWJ

[one-kuna]

I understand that exfoliation means flaking or peeling away but I see no evidence of this

on the letter M for the coin in question. I do see bifurcation, however, which is normal

on large silver coins of this period.

 

Bifurcation is the situation where the bottom of a letter (near the edge of the coin) splits in two.

This was the result of insufficient striking power by the press at the edge of the coin. A well-

struck piece might not have the bifurcation. In some cases the Russian mints used punches

for numerals that appear to be bifurcated but actually are not; this is most easily seen in the

figure 1 of the date on piataks of 1763–1796.

 

RWJ

 

Andrey5 finished discussion on all three forums while we are still talking about it;

 

I just brought a fact that Andrey5 said (not one-kuna) that he is final decision to return his coin back to Gorny is based on exfoliation of letter M, which he recently saw somewhere else on similar ruble;

 

I agree with RWJ that on given pictures from Andrey5 there are no exfoliation visiable/notable;