Jump to content
CoinPeople.com

2010 New York Sale up on web


squirrel
 Share

Recommended Posts

Then I wonder what Baldwins contibuted to the descriptions and why is not Markov's name mentioned in the credits. Modesty?

the answer can be found in the payment instruction paragraph:

to whom money for lots won will be sent :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I wonder what Baldwins contibuted to the descriptions and why is not Markov's name mentioned in the credits. Modesty?

 

Modesty?! Shame more likely, or do I give him more credit than is deserved?... I would not want my name anywhere near the description of that 3 kopeck "error" or the Elisabeth "mmd"/spb ruble. Does anyone see it differently from me?, -- for I think these actions are called FRAUD: 1. It is an affirmative statement, 2. known to the speaker to be false (he knows coins and understands what he has there), and 3. made to deceive for financial gain. The last prong of the test -- 4. someone relying on the statement and getting hurt -- may very well take place at the auction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very rare and unique combination of pattern coin and error coin >>>how come can it be ?

 

Who has been changed a minting process? ;):ninja:;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

List of problem lots (The list does not go into arguable issues like how scrapes over "full mint luster" are relevant to the condition of the coin. ):

 

Lot 1002 -- sale of fake labeled as fake.

 

Lot 1004 -- sale of fake labeled as original. An argument can be made, but why bother?

 

Lot 1017 -- coin from auction XII (lot 1019) -- saw it myself, no traces of lettered edge, but there were traces of tooling. Maybe now it has traces of a lettered edge...

 

Lot 1051 -- some creative bullshit about new variety. I can show at least 2 coins from my collection with this M... Also, (15 ruble) coin is very different (IMXO).

 

Lot 1061 -- my favorite -- the coin was clearly re-edged, while the reference numbering is for Ioann edge. I saw this done on ebay with 1796 em 5 kop Paul Overstrike. But, at least there an argument can be made that the last edge was //////// over XXXXX. Here, no such argument is available.

 

Lot 1163 -- more bs.

 

Lot 1310 -- a beauty! How does "Mr. Baldwin" explain the production process which created this RARITY? Why the weight difference? But wait -- a brockage! That must be it! Only why the weight difference? And, how would a brockage occur when these were made on a special press one at the time with great care... How about this: A galvano maybe?! But how do you sell one if you label it as galvano...

 

I stopped there. Maybe someone can continue -- although, it seems that people here are more "trigger happy" discussing Chinese fakes sold on ebay. My opinion, this is worse. The list is not very long, however, lots 1061, and 1310 would kill any reputation. I am amazed that Baldwin would allow it. I thought he knew enough about coins to stop this -- could be an interesting lawsuit. After all, you cannot disclaim fraud in a contract... I hope these two are pulled before the auction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New York sale 2010.

Lot 1001. Polupoltinnik 1654.

In original catalog by Muenzen und Medaillen AG, Auktion XX, there are some references mentioned as

to Schubert, Chaudoir, Hess 210, etc., what is wrong wiht them?? against Kaim, Reichel and Spassky in 2010 sale??

 

Muenzen und Medaillen AG, Auktion XX, 1959, lot 809 says that condition of this coin descibed as SCHON.

Fifty years later European SCHON becomes an american EXTREMELY FINE ? :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New York sale 2010.

Lot 1002. Polupoltinnik 1654.

Can it be an earlier 20 century copy (fake), is there a reference available which states that this imitating copy (fake) was made in 19 century as descriprion reflects it, and,

is anyone willing to pay 400 dollars for such a copy / fake ? :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

List of problem lots (The list does not go into arguable issues like how scrapes over "full mint luster" are relevant to the condition of the coin. ):

 

Lot 1061 -- my favorite -- the coin was clearly re-edged, while the reference numbering is for Ioann edge. I saw this done on ebay with 1796 em 5 kop Paul Overstrike. But, at least there an argument can be made that the last edge was //////// over XXXXX. Here, no such argument is available.

 

Lot 1310 -- a beauty! How does "Mr. Baldwin" explain the production process which created this RARITY? Why the weight difference? But wait -- a brockage! That must be it! Only why the weight difference? And, how would a brockage occur when these were made on a special press one at the time with great care... How about this: A galvano maybe?! But how do you sell one if you label it as galvano...

 

I stopped there. Maybe someone can continue -- although, it seems that people here are more "trigger happy" discussing Chinese fakes sold on ebay. My opinion, this is worse. The list is not very long, however, lots 1061, and 1310 would kill any reputation. I am amazed that Baldwin would allow it. I thought he knew enough about coins to stop this -- could be an interesting lawsuit. After all, you cannot disclaim fraud in a contract... I hope these two are pulled before the auction.

I have looked at Lot 1061, and the cataloguing, and do not see any problems. Please explain.

 

For Lot 1310 the point of the 1827 three kopecks was a test run and it is therefore unlikely that they

were struck on a special press one at a time. An underweight piece could easily have become a

brockage by failing to eject properly.

 

RWJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New York sale 2010.

Lot 1003. Jefimok Rouble 1655.

 

Reading in lot description:

Sotheby's - 61* Germany, Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel, Heirich Julius, Wildman thaler

New York sale - 1003, (no Germany mentioned), Brunswick-Wolfen-buttel Taler of Henrich Julius

Text for both above catalogs are in English ^^

 

What is amazing that Doctor Spasskii became Spaskii in 2010 ;)

 

The 1997 auction by Sotheby's estimated condition for this lot was VERY FINE.

13th years later - EXTREMELY FINE ? ;)

 

Also, why a provenance from 1997 Sotheby's auction for this lot was not used in 2010, is there something wrong with V. Vouremmaa, Tampere, Finland ?? :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me that , at least, two people on this forum hate New York Sales with passion.

 

Any personal stories or just allergy ? :ninja:

 

Sucks when you are associated with someone only because you collect coins live in NY and speak Russian. As to love or hate, or a story-- why would you want to turn it into a personal dispute? I am sure you have stories or allergies, but that has very little connection to the substance of my post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have looked at Lot 1061, and the cataloguing, and do not see any problems. Please explain.

 

For Lot 1310 the point of the 1827 three kopecks was a test run and it is therefore unlikely that they

were struck on a special press one at a time. An underweight piece could easily have become a

brockage by failing to eject properly.

 

RWJ

 

Lot 1061 -- Described as Bit. 105 -- 1742 mmd ruble with spb edge. The coin is an overstruck Ioann spb ruble, which skipped re-edging. A mint error which is R4 according to Bitkin. This coin is not it. When both edges are there, as is described in the catalog, it means that the coin was re-edged, which turns it into Bitkin 104 -- R2. I think this is pretty clear.

 

 

Lot 1310 --In his book published in 2001 Mr. Uzdenikov claims that the coin was an illustration for a proposed overstriking program of Kankrin (we call them patterns). I am not sure what you mean by a test run. According to Uzdenikov, a very small quantity of these coins was struck on the planchetts of the 2 kop of the 24-ruble standard to illustrate the idea (the reason patterns were normally struck). This completely negates the idea of a regular press (because it was not normally used to produce patterns) or a grossly lower weight -- what would that illustrate? I tend to trust the late Mr. Uzdenikov...

 

Moreover, this object does not look like a copper brockage, at least from these pictures. The concave section is protected, and should have superbe details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sucks when you are associated with someone only because you collect coins live in NY and speak Russian. As to love or hate, or a story-- why would you want to turn it into a personal dispute? I am sure you have stories or allergies, but that has very little connection to the substance of my post.

 

Sorry, I did not express myself properly. I was talking about a personal "patterns" not personal stories.

Anyway, back to the topic...Oh, I see more posts already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lot 1061 -- Described as Bit. 105 -- 1742 mmd ruble with spb edge. The coin is an overstruck Ioann spb ruble, which skipped re-edging. A mint error which is R4 according to Bitkin. This coin is not it. When both edges are there, as is described in the catalog, it means that the coin was re-edged, which turns it into Bitkin 104 -- R2. I think this is pretty clear.

 

Lot 1310 --In his book published in 2001 Mr. Uzdenikov claims that the coin was an illustration for a proposed overstriking program of Kankrin (we call them patterns). I am not sure what you mean by a test run. According to Uzdenikov, a very small quantity of these coins was struck on the planchetts of the 2 kop of the 24-ruble standard to illustrate the idea (the reason patterns were normally struck). This completely negates the idea of a regular press (because it was not normally used to produce patterns) or a grossly lower weight -- what would that illustrate? I tend to trust the late Mr. Uzdenikov...

 

Moreover, this object does not look like a copper brockage, at least from these pictures. The concave section is protected, and should have superbe details.

Lot 1061. I checked it against Diakov only and saw no problem and still do not.

The fact that a coin skipped re-edging does not make it a mint error, only an

interesting variant. There may have been a sense of urgency in re-doing these

coins and the re-edging may well have been skipped deliberately for part of the

recoinage.

 

Lot 1310. In testing whether or not a given pattern will work there are two steps.

The first is to strike what we call pattern coins on a screw press (i.e. the ‘one at

a time’ you mention) and then study the results. The dies are then put into a steam

press (Boulton’s in this case) for a test run. Lot 1310 appears to me to have been

struck on an underweight planchet on a steam press and could easily have been

a brockage under such circumstances. Such test runs are at the whim of the mint

director and may, or may not, appear in the documentation.

 

After the test run is made on the steam press the strikes are evaluated for possible

regular coinage. That Mr. Uzdenikov was unaware of this procedure merely means

that no one person can know all aspects of patterns and coinage.

 

RWJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lot 1061. I checked it against Diakov only and saw no problem and still do not.

The fact that a coin skipped re-edging does not make it a mint error, only an

interesting variant. RWJ

a coin has two edges per description, so there was no skipped re-edging, and it is not R4 :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...