alexbq2 Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 5 kopeek 1796 EM Source of an artifact I saw this coin recently. It is not mine, so I can only provide the following images. I would like to hear your opinions on the source 2 artifacts on the right side of the following coin. One is a straight line, another is wave. Would this simply be caused by the deterioration of the die (cracks, breaks, etc..)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigistenz Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 5 kopeek 1796 EMSource of an artifact I saw this coin recently. It is not mine, so I can only provide the following images. I would like to hear your opinions on the source 2 artifacts on the right side of the following coin. One is a straight line, another is wave. Would this simply be caused by the deterioration of the die (cracks, breaks, etc..)? Hi Alex, I think the straight lines are scratches on the coin (which seems to have seen quite some circulation before being cleaned), and the wavy thing seems to be a die defect. Sigi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 Hi Alex, I think the straight lines are scratches on the coin (which seems to have seen quite some circulation before being cleaned), and the wavy thing seems to be a die defect. Sigi very carefully presume that it is double struck because some other lines visiable between left wing and eagle neck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted September 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 I was curious about that straight line, and made a small bid on this coin. However, the coin was sold for double of my max bid – a surprising amount if we are to believe in the decline of the Russian coin market, and one that gave me an impression that I missed something important. So I’m relieved that no one here thinks that this is a possible Paul’s overstrike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobh Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 So I’m relieved that no one here thinks that this is a possible Paul’s overstrike. The eagle is slightly different in Paul's overstrikes dated 1796, although original dies were supposedly used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nordic gold Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 Gentlemen, I would like to draw your attention to this overstrike. There are clear signs that this coin has been overstruck on a 5 kopeek 1788 (traces of the old date are readable just above 17 of the new date in an up and down position), but no signs of a temporary life as 10 kopeek are present. The edge too is untouched. So, the question is wether this coin belongs to the re-overstriking programme of 1796/7 at all. It isn´t re-overstruck, only overstruck. Theoretically this kind of overstriking could have taken place already during the last year of the reign of Catherine II. Some of you may stand to the point that this coin belongs to the re-overstriking programme anyhow. Although I do not claim it doesn´t, it does seem contrary to the idea of re-overstring that a ready-made 5 kopeek should be later overstruck as a similar 5 kopeek, the only difference being a new date - when a new date was not an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nordic gold Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 Because of the limited space 100 K I send this side of the coin separately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobh Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 Gentlemen, I would like to draw your attention to this overstrike. There are clear signs that this coin has been overstruck on a 5 kopeek 1788 (traces of the old date are readable just above 17 of the new date in an up and down position), but no signs of a temporary life as 10 kopeek are present. The edge too is untouched. So, the question is wether this coin belongs to the re-overstriking programme of 1796/7 at all. It isn´t re-overstruck, only overstruck. Theoretically this kind of overstriking could have taken place already during the last year of the reign of Catherine II. Some of you may stand to the point that this coin belongs to the re-overstriking programme anyhow. Although I do not claim it doesn´t, it does seem contrary to the idea of re-overstring that a ready-made 5 kopeek should be later overstruck as a similar 5 kopeek, the only difference being a new date - when a new date was not an issue. Very nice coin! The Brekke/Bakken 1997 supplement lists 1796/88-EM as a known overstrike. It is not from Paul's restriking, though, because these were done on the cipher series 10 kopek. So you are correct that this was done during Catherine II's reign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted October 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 Very nice coin! The Brekke/Bakken 1997 supplement lists 1796/88-EM as a known overstrike. It is not from Paul's restriking, though, because these were done on the cipher series 10 kopek. So you are correct that this was done during Catherine II's reign. Why would this be done in Catherine's reign? In 1796 they were preparing to overstike their 5 kopeeks into 10s. And the previous overstiking ended in 1789, and none of it was at Ekaterinburg. I read somewhere, perhaps in Brekke/Bakken, that coins that were waiting to be overstruck into the ciphers (but did not make it), were overstuck under Paul's campaign along with everything else (ciphers and re-edged coins). The same seems to have happen in the previous overstiking campaigns. Here's a 1766 5 kopeeks that was struck on an Elizabeth's 5 kopeeks (skipping the 1762 striking): Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nordic gold Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 That is a very interesting coin indeed, but in my opinion not fully comparable to the 1796/88 overstrike. The coins of an earlier ruler were often overstruck in the design and name of the new ruler, as in the case of your 1766 CПБ. Similarly when the weight standard was changed the nominal of the new coins had to be changed accordingly. None of this is the case with a 1788 coin, which is overstruck in 1796. Despite overstriking the design and the nominal remain the same. However, as I already said I do not think that it was impossible for a coin that has been overstruck only once to belong to the so called re-overstriking programme, only it is hard to see the meaning behind this. Also in this case it should be noted that the programme included coins, that were not re-overstruck but only overstruck. I also do not think that it is impossible to say that these coins belong to an earlier stage of overstriking. It is true, that Ekaterinburg mint had not overstruck 5 kopeek coins for a long time in 1796 but it is also true, that the part of the 1796 EM overstrikes that bear no traces of a 10 kopeek coin are by far more accurately executed compared to those which do bear those marks. I have encountered a few - there are no crude irregularities, the size and thickness are normal as if they were from another occasion and workshop. And perhaps they are. Only this far I have not found as much as a footnote describing this matter in literature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.