constanius Posted November 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Here is Nikonov's medal: It is Diakov 754.3. 1868 Imperial SPB Academy of Arts. Two award medals combined into one - Rzhevskaya award and Demidov award. 38 mm. by V. Nikonov. Rarity in copper R1. This does appear to be the same as my obverse, looks identical apart from the missing original signature and Champnney added in its place. The reverse is very close but there are some very slight differences, the most obvious being the tongues. Thank you so much IgorS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 This does appear to be the same as my obverse, looks identical apart from the missing original signature and Champnney added in its place. The reverse is very close but there are some very slight differences, the most obvious being the tongues. from my point of view, both observe and reserve are a similar (not identical) to an original, and both sides have significant differences from original, so it was copied from an originals; sizes are differ from originals too; and to produce such piece there was no needs to be in Russia... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IgorS Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 from my point of view, both observe and reserve are a similar (not identical) to an original, and both sides have significant differences from original, so it was copied from an originals; sizes are differ from originals too; and to produce such piece there was no needs to be in Russia... Sizes of obverses are the same. I suggested reverse as possible source, without even comparing closely, but if you feel like going through entire Diakov's book looking for exact match - let us know your findings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constanius Posted November 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 to produce such piece there was no needs to be in Russia... Seeing as he produced his mules whilst in europe using european coins to hand to demonstrate his technique to government mints in the hope of selling the right to use his patented method of producing dies from existing coins/medals, why would we doubt that this one was produced in Russia? Royal Mint documents show that the Russians & Germans paid 700 GBP each, the Dutch & French 400GBP each for the rights to use his method. We know he produced mules in Russia using what was at hand, we do not know he produced foreign mules in the USA There were obvious reasons to produce a Russian mule whilst in Russia, the material to copy was at hand and using local coins/medals which would be well known there & by producing a mule from their own coins/medals he could not be accused of using sleight of hand, he was ther after all to sell his method to the Russians. I can see not one reason why we should think this mule was produced in the USA So applying Occam's razor....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 Sizes of obverses are the same. I suggested reverse as possible source, without even comparing closely, but if you feel like going through entire Diakov's book looking for exact match - let us know your findings. there is no need to go through exact match due to a fact that this mule was used as a "source" and new dies was cut (being copied) by Champney from 2 known pieces the size of observe is the same but details are differ from an original, it is obvious under close supervision; reserve size does not match with an original and details are significantly differ from original one; similarity / likeness would be a better description instead of using "identical" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 Seeing as he produced his mules whilst in europe using european coins to hand to demonstrate his technique to government mints in the hope of selling the right to use his patented method of producing dies from existing coins/medals, why would we doubt that this one was produced in Russia? #1.the only one coin was discussed earlier and it was exact match with an original mint dies #2.the doubts start from the following: a.this is a medal/jeton, not a coin b.this memoriable medal/jeton was introduced not for a government mint use as for circulation c.both dies do not match to the originals ones', so it could have been possibly done not in russia at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 The point of these mules was not to create collectibles but to prove and sell Champney’s patented technique to the mint. Hence, all these trial pieces would be produced on site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constanius Posted November 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 Most medal & coin have different die variations due to wear and damage resulting in new dies being cut. We have no information that Champney could engrave dies(though we know he added his name to some of the coins he muled), more likely that it is a different die by Nikonov than one by Champney. See how close they are from the following pictures layering Champney's over Nikonov's the middle pics show both signatures. The Brooch is the clearest difference between them. "After these years in Europe Mr Champney returned to America and proceeded to perfect his methods so as to make them applicable to dies of all sizes his previous work had been for coining purposes and medals only" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 ... This does appear to be the same as my obverse, looks identical apart from the missing original signature and Champnney added in its place. The reverse is very close but there are some very slight differences, the most obvious being the tongues. the size of observe is the same but details are differ from an original, it is obvious under close supervision; reserve size does not match with an original and details are significantly differ from original one; similarity / likeness would be a better description instead of using "identical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constanius Posted November 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 new dies was cut (being copied) by Champney from 2 known pieces There is absolutely no evidence that Champney ever engraved any dies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 Copper 39mm by Champney.I noticed a post which mentioned the american George Champney in regard to a russian/italian mule and wondered if any of you guys that collect russian coins had any more info about Champney and/or this medal. Who is the on the obverse? is it Peter the Great? Why has St. George & the Dragon been replaced by a wyvern(symbol of Kazan)) on the Russian coat of arms? Any help welcomed, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constanius Posted November 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 He added his name to the $5 dollar coin, but the die was produced by his method of using the original coin to produce a die he did not engrave that coin with his name on it! That is what he did, he did not engrave the mules he produced. I cannot explain it any clearer than that, sorry if you do not understand, he was a technician with a mechanical method for producing dies from existing coins/medals, not an engraver. He also did not engrave the dies for the russian/italian mule, he used the original coins to directly strike the dies. His original idea was simplicity itself-given a model for a piece of work to be produced in dies, the simplest method possible is to drive that model(coin etc) into a block of soft steel, so as to leave its perfect image in the heated softened block of steel(which is later hardened) the driving force was to drop the model(coin) attached to a very heavy hammer from a great height approx. 50 feet. Before the die so produced was hardened he could add his signature and fill the old signature. Did you read the LINK start from page 74 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 Copper 39mm by Champney.I noticed a post which mentioned the american George Champney in regard to a russian/italian mule and wondered if any of you guys that collect russian coins had any more info about Champney and/or this medal. Who is the on the obverse? is it Peter the Great? Why has St. George & the Dragon been replaced by a wyvern(symbol of Kazan)) on the Russian coat of arms? Any help welcomed, thanks. Did you read above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 I think you got more data than anywhere else on the subject from this post, nobody said that he did engraved new dies, the dies are different and new dies were cut does not mean that he did it (in US), what I said is that the piece what you show here has differed from an original dies, so it is not direct copy, and you do not have to explain me what is obvious and discussed alredy here, it was your statement regards "identical" side, which is under big doubt, and my point is to assist you, to point out that there are the apparent differrences on both sides, according your responses you probably do not see those differences, and do not want to go through its details to confirm them, but you following what the text says about the Champney, the text about him was already read several times, and you keep repeating all what I said right before you, this discussion is about a piece/s you show us for advise, ONE medal/jeton piece, and you got many answers, proof of the text does not prove my opinion about this medal/jeton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constanius Posted November 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 Most medal & coin have different die variations due to wear and damage resulting in new dies being cut. We have no information that Champney could engrave dies(though we know he added his name to some of the coins he muled), more likely that it is a different die by Nikonov than one by Champney. The Brooch is the clearest difference between them. The above posts shows, when I had enlarged the picture the Brooch was an obvious difference. I also said This does appear to be the same as my obverse, looks identical apart Just because we have not found an exact match yet, does not mean the medal he copied was not from an original Nikonov. Plus you seemed determined that it was made in the USA and made by Champney you said visiting Boston and Champney dedicated this medal/jeton and expressed shock when I said Champney was not an engraver, he signed some mules to show it was his method that produced the new dies(not that he was the engraver) that is why he produced mules in the first place. You also did say and new dies was cut (being copied) by Champney from 2 known pieces I guess we must agree to differ on this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.