Nordic gold Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 In the forthcoming Thomas Höiland auction nr 129 two overstrikes 1796 EM will be sold, the items are nrs 3106 and 3107. The same Bitkin and Brekke reference is given for both coins. However, while the first coin has clearly been overstruck on 10 kopecks 1796 the second is not; I would say there is a regular 5 kopeck piece underneath (with some imagination one can trace a date "92" or maybe "82"). The point is I am unable to find anything resembling any detail of an overstruck 10-kopeck piece here. This involves a problem. Why should coins of right type and weight be overstruck at all during the re-overstriking program? Were the 1796 EM coins over a former 5-kopeck piece of similar type in fact struck earlier that year, and do not belong to the overstriking program of 1796/97 at all? However, no overstriked coins during the reign of Catherine II with a date 1796 EM are mentioned in the reference literature (I know of). This should mean they were this far overlooked or possibly confused with the coins overstruck on 10-kopeck pieces - which also seems rather unlikely. The Höiland specimen 3107 is not the first one I have seen, but they have not been that many. A clear majority of the overstruck 1796 EM 5 kopeck coins bear traces of the ornamented E II from the 1796 series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 In the forthcoming Thomas Höiland auction nr 129 two overstrikes 1796 EM will be sold, the items are nrs 3106 and 3107. The same Bitkin and Brekke reference is given for both coins. However, while the first coin has clearly been overstruck on 10 kopecks 1796 the second is not; I would say there is a regular 5 kopeck piece underneath (with some imagination one can trace a date "92" or maybe "82"). The point is I am unable to find anything resembling any detail of an overstruck 10-kopeck piece here. This involves a problem. Why should coins of right type and weight be overstruck at all during the re-overstriking program? Were the 1796 EM coins over a former 5-kopeck piece of similar type in fact struck earlier that year, and do not belong to the overstriking program of 1796/97 at all? However, no overstriked coins during the reign of Catherine II with a date 1796 EM are mentioned in the reference literature (I know of). This should mean they were this far overlooked or possibly confused with the coins overstruck on 10-kopeck pieces - which also seems rather unlikely. The Höiland specimen 3107 is not the first one I have seen, but they have not been that many. A clear majority of the overstruck 1796 EM 5 kopeck coins bear traces of the ornamented E II from the 1796 series. Brekke 1977 edition very well explains the re-overstriking process (1797) and issue of coins with different dates 1793-1796. Text in pp 176-178 Chart p 179 Pictures pp 180-183 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigistenz Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 In the forthcoming Thomas Höiland auction nr 129 two overstrikes 1796 EM will be sold, the items are nrs 3106 and 3107. The same Bitkin and Brekke reference is given for both coins. However, while the first coin has clearly been overstruck on 10 kopecks 1796 the second is not; I would say there is a regular 5 kopeck piece underneath (with some imagination one can trace a date "92" or maybe "82"). The point is I am unable to find anything resembling any detail of an overstruck 10-kopeck piece here. This involves a problem. Why should coins of right type and weight be overstruck at all during the re-overstriking program? Were the 1796 EM coins over a former 5-kopeck piece of similar type in fact struck earlier that year, and do not belong to the overstriking program of 1796/97 at all? However, no overstriked coins during the reign of Catherine II with a date 1796 EM are mentioned in the reference literature (I know of). This should mean they were this far overlooked or possibly confused with the coins overstruck on 10-kopeck pieces - which also seems rather unlikely. The Höiland specimen 3107 is not the first one I have seen, but they have not been that many. A clear majority of the overstruck 1796 EM 5 kopeck coins bear traces of the ornamented E II from the 1796 series. Turning the picture shows the first host coin's traces upright. We can see °2 of the date, probably 92 rather than 82. We also see the loop on the bottom of the host coin. Theoretic candidates for the host coin are 1782EM,KM, 1792AM,EM (1792KM has no loop). Consulting my archives with dozens of pictures each date/mint I found that the 1782EM and KM loops are alike, differing from the undercoin's loop. The 1792AM loop is different, too, whereas 1792EM is perfectly matching. The undercoin was thus most probably a 5kop1792EM. As Brekke tells us it was decided to provide the 10kop1796 with edge 6 (\\\\\\\\\\\\\) but that only very few of them really got the edge 6. Our coin shows edge 6. This proves that the 5kop1792EM was processed to be overstruck into a 10kop1796. As there has not been found a trace of the 10kop1796 die impressions, the overstrike was either very weak or did not take place at all before the coin was struck into this 5kop1796EM. Sigi By sigistenz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nordic gold Posted April 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 I thank you for these observations, especially concerning the edge type. Something puzzles me here. The catalogue description says that the Höiland nr 3107 coin has a mixed edge 5/6. As you say, according to Brekke p. 177 this means that a former edge 6 has been recut back to edge 5, but in the light of other reference (Diakov, Bitkin) the 10-kopeck pieces were in fact struck with the new edge type 1 or more commonly left with the old edge type as it was (5). This leaves me wonder where the type 6 edge comes from? This edge design was not used during the re-overstriking program - on the contrary it was reversed - and on the other hand it does not belong to any of the host coins. I would like to turn your attention into another interesting specimen, also sold by Thomas Höiland, in the 113. auction (collection of Jens E. Aalborg, part II) nr 1277. Unfortunately I cannot provide photos of this coin, but most of the copper collectors certainly have the catalogue. Here is another 5 kopecks 1796 EM that has been struck over a 5 kopeck piece - this time dated 1788. Quite rightly this specimen has been placed among the regular coinage of Catherine II as re-striking 5 kopecks as new 5 kopecks during the re-overstriking program would not make sense and nothing in the appearance of this specimen indicates that it should have lived a short period as a 10 kopecks coin. Not long ago I have seen another specimen with exactly the same characteristics. This specimen had an unchanged edge of type 5. To me the existance of these coins include the possibility that the remark in Brekke`s work following nr 307 p. 122 is not fully correct but something new has turned up - an overstrike of 5 kopeks 1796 EM belonging to the reign of Catherine II. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigistenz Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 Nice to meet someone who goes profoundly into the matter . Tomorrow I will have the time to reply, I also have all the pictures you mention. Sigi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudhut1000 Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 I have an overstrike that I believe is a 5, overstrike 10, overstrike 5!! I'm gonning to find it from my collecting and post. I will be sending it in for verification and grading. I sold an overstrike 5 EM about 6 ears ago on ebay for $250.00. It had been graded by PCGS but I forgot (didn't know that I had to) ask & pay for a foreign error coin. A numerai 2 was very evident.... I can't recall the other overstrike features. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigistenz Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 I thank you for these observations, especially concerning the edge type. Something puzzles me here. The catalogue description says that the Höiland nr 3107 coin has a mixed edge 5/6. As you say, according to Brekke p. 177 this means that a former edge 6 has been recut back to edge 5, but in the light of other reference (Diakov, Bitkin) the 10-kopeck pieces were in fact struck with the new edge type 1 or more commonly left with the old edge type as it was (5). This leaves me wonder where the type 6 edge comes from? This edge design was not used during the re-overstriking program - on the contrary it was reversed - and on the other hand it does not belong to any of the host coins. I would like to turn your attention into another interesting specimen, also sold by Thomas Höiland, in the 113. auction (collection of Jens E. Aalborg, part II) nr 1277. Unfortunately I cannot provide photos of this coin, but most of the copper collectors certainly have the catalogue. Here is another 5 kopecks 1796 EM that has been struck over a 5 kopeck piece - this time dated 1788. Quite rightly this specimen has been placed among the regular coinage of Catherine II as re-striking 5 kopecks as new 5 kopecks during the re-overstriking program would not make sense and nothing in the appearance of this specimen indicates that it should have lived a short period as a 10 kopecks coin. Not long ago I have seen another specimen with exactly the same characteristics. This specimen had an unchanged edge of type 5. To me the existance of these coins include the possibility that the remark in Brekke`s work following nr 307 p. 122 is not fully correct but something new has turned up - an overstrike of 5 kopeks 1796 EM belonging to the reign of Catherine II. Hi, according to Mr Brekke's article the 10kop1796 was to be of a completely new design including a special edge. As Catherine's 5 kopeck pieces had either edge 5 (XXXXXXXXX) or edge 1 (/////////////), the 10kop1796 was to have edge 6 (\\\\\\\\\\\\\\). But for some reason or other, edge 6 was only applied on very few of the new 10kop1796. And that is why edge 6 shows only on very few of the (1797) re-overstrikes. The 5kop1796EMover88 puzzled me, too Maybe a very misstruck 5kop1788 was struck again in 1796?? Or a quite normal 5kop1788 got into the press in1796 by mistake?? New fascinating discoveries are quite frequent with Russian coins. Sigi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudhut1000 Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 Hi, according to Mr Brekke's article the 10kop1796 was to be of a completely new design including a special edge. As Catherine's 5 kopeck pieces had either edge 5 (XXXXXXXXX) or edge 1 (/////////////), the 10kop1796 was to have edge 6 (\\\\\\\\\\\\\\). But for some reason or other, edge 6 was only applied on very few of the new 10kop1796. And that is why edge 6 shows only on very few of the (1797) re-overstrikes. The 5kop1796EMover88 puzzled me, too Maybe a very misstruck 5kop1788 was struck again in 1796?? Or a quite normal 5kop1788 got into the press in1796 by mistake?? New fascinating discoveries are quite frequent with Russian coins. Sigi Thanks for the great info. I will check the edge when I pull my OS from my hoard! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 I thank you for these observations, especially concerning the edge type. Something puzzles me here. The catalogue description says that the Höiland nr 3107 coin has a mixed edge 5/6. As you say, according to Brekke p. 177 this means that a former edge 6 has been recut back to edge 5, but in the light of other reference (Diakov, Bitkin) the 10-kopeck pieces were in fact struck with the new edge type 1 or more commonly left with the old edge type as it was (5). This leaves me wonder where the type 6 edge comes from? This edge design was not used during the re-overstriking program - on the contrary it was reversed - and on the other hand it does not belong to any of the host coins. I would like to turn your attention into another interesting specimen, also sold by Thomas Höiland, in the 113. auction (collection of Jens E. Aalborg, part II) nr 1277. Unfortunately I cannot provide photos of this coin, but most of the copper collectors certainly have the catalogue. Here is another 5 kopecks 1796 EM that has been struck over a 5 kopeck piece - this time dated 1788. Quite rightly this specimen has been placed among the regular coinage of Catherine II as re-striking 5 kopecks as new 5 kopecks during the re-overstriking program would not make sense and nothing in the appearance of this specimen indicates that it should have lived a short period as a 10 kopecks coin. Not long ago I have seen another specimen with exactly the same characteristics. This specimen had an unchanged edge of type 5. To me the existance of these coins include the possibility that the remark in Brekke`s work following nr 307 p. 122 is not fully correct but something new has turned up - an overstrike of 5 kopeks 1796 EM belonging to the reign of Catherine II. All above is very simple. I do not know if you can read russian - but I found the answer for you: Uzd 2004, page 394, paragraph 152 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.