STEVE MOULDING Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 http://www.kuenker.de/onlineAuctionList.as...d=148&lid=1 What copper I've seen so far looks very strong.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobh Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 Thanks, Steve! I wonder who got lot 6344? I knew I would be outbid at the estimate, but wouldn't have thought it would go that high... Looks like I was also overbid (only slightly, though) on lot 6844. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 Thanks, Steve! I wonder who got lot 6344? I knew I would be outbid at the estimate, but wouldn't have thought it would go that high... Looks like I was also overbid (only slightly, though) on lot 6844. lot 6344 is a very rare and gorgeous piece Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 http://www.kuenker.de/onlineAuctionList.as...d=148&lid=1 What copper I've seen so far looks very strong.... for copper fans including myself: polushka 1799 em from 1500 up to 15500 ! 1 kopek 1810 went very high against its estimate, 2500 up to 14000 ! denga 1810 went from 1250 to 1500... 5 kop 180. from 7500 to 15000 ! 3 kopek 1827 pattern from 3000 up to 13000 only... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE MOULDING Posted June 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 lot 6344 is a very rare and gorgeous piece This (Cipher with EM) looks a lot like one that was passed around at the RNS meeting in New York 2000 (I think Basok had it). It was supposedly fake. I'll have to see if I can find an image of that one. Here's the Kuenker link by the way http://www.kuenker.de/onlineShopImage.asp?...55/06344q00.jpg Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobh Posted June 27, 2009 Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 This (Cipher with EM) looks a lot like one that was passed around at the RNS meeting in New York 2000 (I think Basok had it). It was supposedly fake. I'll have to see if I can find an image of that one. Here's the Kuenker link by the way http://www.kuenker.de/onlineShopImage.asp?...55/06344q00.jpg Steve Hmmm ... comparing these images to Brekke 17 (listed under Paul, of course), there might be some little differences in minor details, e.g. in the wing feathers. However, I see nothing at all that "looks fake" about this coin, if you know what I mean. And there are so many varieties of these years ... wouldn't be the first time that I was tripped up by comparing images in reference works. (Edit: Also, the images in Brekke are of the same coin as in Bitkin [109], which doesn't help matters much...) If it is a fake, it is certainly very convincing! Or is there something obvious when holding it in hand ... perhaps the edge is wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE MOULDING Posted June 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 Hmmm ... comparing these images to Brekke 17 (listed under Paul, of course), there might be some little differences in minor details, e.g. in the wing feathers. However, I see nothing at all that "looks fake" about this coin, if you know what I mean. And there are so many varieties of these years ... wouldn't be the first time that I was tripped up by comparing images in reference works. (Edit: Also, the images in Brekke are of the same coin as in Bitkin [109], which doesn't help matters much...) If it is a fake, it is certainly very convincing! Or is there something obvious when holding it in hand ... perhaps the edge is wrong? I'll have to find the image...I think it was also shown in JRNS. I seem to recall Alex arguing that there was no flan broadening seen as you'd expect in these overstrikes, and there was some unexplained 'rim' on one part of the coin. Something else was 'implausible'. Anyway...it looked convincing to me back then but I deferred to Alex's better judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted June 27, 2009 Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 I'll have to find the image...I think it was also shown in JRNS. I seem to recall Alex arguing that there was no flan broadening seen as you'd expect in these overstrikes, and there was some unexplained 'rim' on one part of the coin. Something else was 'implausible'.Anyway...it looked convincing to me back then but I deferred to Alex's better judgement. I was at meeting too and held a piece in my hands as well, there is am image of it in RNS what number - I don't remember, but it was bought from e-bay for $850 I remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE MOULDING Posted June 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 I was at meeting too and held a piece in my hands as well, there is am image of it in RNS what number - I don't remember, but it was bought from e-bay for $850 I remember. OK found it....JRNS70 Page 64. Different coin, but also showing the EM Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobh Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 OK found it....JRNS70 Page 64.Different coin, but also showing the EM Thanks, Steve ... found it! "According to Uzdenikov, only one original 1796 10 kopeck piece is known with the EM mintmark..." Does this mean that all but one of them was overstruck? If so, this wouldn't necessarily say anything about the rarity of the overstruck coins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE MOULDING Posted June 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 Thanks, Steve ... found it! Does this mean that all but one of them was overstruck? If so, this wouldn't necessarily say anything about the rarity of the overstruck coins. Quite right. However, if we were to believe the EM+cipher was a pattern and only one or two were made, then that's it...it's highly unlikely we'd see any more. As it is, I think several (or more) were produced. I've seen one in person (EM is very hard to see but definitely there). The Kuenker (and possibly the 2000 coin) is also likely genuine. They are rare though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IgorS Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 Quite right. However, if we were to believe the EM+cipher was a pattern and only one or two were made, then that's it...it's highly unlikely we'd see any more. As it is, I think several (or more) were produced. I've seen one in person (EM is very hard to see but definitely there). The Kuenker (and possibly the 2000 coin) is also likely genuine. They are rare though. I once posted a similar coin on this forum: http://www.coinpeople.com/index.php?showtopic=14631&hl= A few years ago I had a discussion with someone who is quite familiar with Paul's re-overstrikes. His feeling was that there was a bunch of cypher coins with mint mark produced, but they were almost all re-overstruck, so they are not that rare as re-overstrikes. He thought that ratio is about 50-50 for mintmark vs. no mintmark in 1796 EM re-overstrikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE MOULDING Posted June 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 I once posted a similar coin on this forum: http://www.coinpeople.com/index.php?showtopic=14631&hl= A few years ago I had a discussion with someone who is quite familiar with Paul's re-overstrikes. His feeling was that there was a bunch of a cypher coins with mint mark produced, but they were almost all re-overstruck, so they are not that rare as re-overstrikes. He thought that ratio is about 50-50 for mintmark vs. no mintmark in 1796 EM re-overstrikes. Very interesting. Thanks Igor I'll take a closer look at my 1796 (of which I only have one). Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 Very interesting. Thanks Igor I'll take a closer look at my 1796 (of which I only have one). Steve by unknown reason adacoins removed image from its website of 5 kopek date 1796 with letters EM, auction 11 lot 476; hope eveyone got its image before Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yes Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 by unknown reason adacoins removed image from its website of 5 kopek date 1796 with letters EM, auction 11 lot 476; hope eveyone got its image before Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yes Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 by unknown reason adacoins removed image from its website of 5 kopek date 1796 with letters EM, auction 11 lot 476; hope eveyone got its image before Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.