2010 New York Sale up on web

[one-kuna]

Lot 1310. The concave section is protected, and should have superbe details.

 

Lot 1310. The concave section is protected, and MUST have SUPERBE details.

[BKB]

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

 

With all due respect, Mr. Julian, I am not sure what you are getting at. The MMD coin that was not re-edged and still has SPB edge is Bit. 105. The coin that was re-edged and now bears MMD edge is Bit. 104. Would you agree with that statement? If so, would you also agree that if you have a Bit. 104 (R2) and call it Bit.105(R4) -- is not kosher? While it is arguable whether failure to re-edge was deliberate or not, this has no bearing on the present issue.

 

I do not know enough of the pattern production at the Russian mint to argue with your "test run" statement. The info I have is that all such patterns were struck in very small numbers -- between 10 and 50 pcs, depending on the number of people they had to be presented to on screw presses. For instance, 1830 patterns were reportedly struck in the 25 pcs. range. For 25 pcs. you do not need a "test run". Medallic press is enough. I have never read of test runs of patterns on russian mints. Please provide a reference. These were ordered by Kankrin himself. I have never thought that a mint director would be allowed, on a whim, to screw around with such order.

[one-kuna]

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. RWJ

 

For above, I was wondering where this reference data come from, is this taken from general information how a mint handles of making patterns,

or it is a description exactly belongs to minting of 1827 pattern 3 kopeks??

 

Then from where ??

[RW Julian]

For above, I was wondering where this reference data come from, is this taken from general information how a mint handles of making patterns,

or it is a description exactly belongs to minting of 1827 pattern 3 kopeks??

Then from where ??

This is standard mint procedure. Test runs of coinage are still commonly done.

 

RWJ

[one-kuna]

This is standard mint procedure. Test runs of coinage are still commonly done.

 

RWJ

 

BINGO,

 

if it is a standard mint procedure then :

 

Lot 1310. The concave section is protected, and MUST have SUPERBE details !

[RW Julian]

With all due respect, Mr. Julian, I am not sure what you are getting at. The MMD coin that was not re-edged and still has SPB edge is Bit. 105. The coin that was re-edged and now bears MMD edge is Bit. 104. Would you agree with that statement? If so, would you also agree that if you have a Bit. 104 (R2) and call it Bit.105(R4) -- is not kosher? While it is arguable whether failure to re-edge was deliberate or not, this has no bearing on the present issue.

 

I do not know enough of the pattern production at the Russian mint to argue with your "test run" statement. The info I have is that all such patterns were struck in very small numbers -- between 10 and 50 pcs, depending on the number of people they had to be presented to on screw presses. For instance, 1830 patterns were reportedly struck in the 25 pcs. range. For 25 pcs. you do not need a "test run". Medallic press is enough. I have never read of test runs of patterns on russian mints. Please provide a reference. These were ordered by Kankrin himself. I have never thought that a mint director would be allowed, on a whim, to screw around with such order.

With respect to the 1742 MMD rouble the Diakov attribution was correct. If the Bitkin is not

then one can hardly charge “fraud.” Misattributions are not all that rare in catalogues and even

in the U.S. market are occasionally seen from the best auction houses. One spectacular error

was made some years ago with respect to the famous 1836 Gobrecht dollar once owned by

President Andrew Jackson but no one got upset over a simple mistake. It was just rectified

and life went on.

 

No reference is necessary with respect to Test Runs. This was common practice at all world

mints. When a design is being considered for coinage, or has been adopted, test runs are the

order of the day in order to work out problems with the dies. Mint directors need to know how a

given design will work in a press designed to strike coins for circulation. Patterns struck on a

medal (screw) press do not provide those kinds of data. I can think of more than one scenario which

would account for the present specimen. Mint Director Ellers would have been remiss in his duties

had he not tested these 1827 dies in a practical setting.

 

Does all of this mean that the 1827 coin is a genuine brockage. No, but I have seen nothing in any of

the present posts to persuade me otherwise.

 

RWJ

[RW Julian]

BINGO, if it is a standard mint procedure then Lot 1310. The concave section is protected, and MUST have SUPERBE details !

Unfortunately that is not what I said. The quality of a brockage actually depends on

several matters, including the speed and pressure of the given press as well as

how the dies are secured.

 

RWJ

[one-kuna]

Unfortunately that is not what I said. The quality of a brockage actually depends on

several matters, including the speed and pressure of the given press as well as

how the dies are secured.

RWJ

 

I did not say that you said it, I pronounced that: if this was produced at SPB mint at that time,

it MUST HAVE SUPERBE DETAILS as others known brokages.

Should we go to Brekke/Bakken supplement page 81-82 to see some pics?

Lets consider above for a moment. According you, you refferring me to SPEED AND PRESSURE of the given press and how DIES ARE SECURED ?? What would happen if dies were not properly secured, would be something produced like that?

I do not think so.

Generally speaking, thank you for taking 50/50 position which does not support the authority of this lot at all

[one-kuna]

No reference is necessary with respect to Test Runs. This was common practice at all world

mints.

RWJ

 

One more thing, pls count on that seriously - what was logically and technologically performed properly in all western countries and around the world - could be easily not done in Russian bazar of mint intrigues

[RW Julian]

Generally speaking, thank you for taking 50/50 position which does not support the authority of this lot at all

Unfortunately, again, that is not what I said. I am unable to prove it genuine from

a photograph but I have seen nothing from one-kuna to indicate otherwise. What

I have said is that such a piece can be expected from the technology and known

mint practices of that era.

 

RWJ

[one-kuna]

Unfortunately, again, that is not what I said. I am unable to prove it genuine from

a photograph but I have seen nothing from one-kuna to indicate otherwise. What

I have said is that such a piece can be expected from the technology and known

mint practices of that era.

 

RWJ

 

"Unfortunately" is really an offensive sarkasm in this contest/discussion.

 

We are going back to last January discussion with opinion and facts.

 

I have a fact.

 

My fact is that if this coin is genuine, so it MUST HAVE SUPER DETAILS but not what we can all observe on it.

 

I can explain why. I can reference to Brekke/Bakken book. I can show dozens brokages with normal details.

 

What moment or part of minting process particulary needs to be explained so there would be no doubt that producing such piece is a fantacy ?

 

Pattern coins were highly supervised, especially this one under Kankrin - true or not??

If true, which is a true, so why we would follow a guess that somebody under high supervison placed a light weight planchet under press? Does it make any sence for anyone or close to??

 

My fact is about this particular issue, NOT ABOUT GENERAL NUMISMATICS

[altyn]

Lot 1327 (20 kop 1860 SPB FB) is not Bikin 161 (older eagle type). It looks more like Bitkin 171.

[grivna1726]

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 ?

I believe that this is an unfair criticism.

 

When numeric grading first appeared on US coins, a grade better than "MS-65" was rarely seen. But today, "MS-67" or even "MS-70" coins are seen frequently.

 

What happened? Did the coins somehow improve themselves over the years? Obviously not. What happened is what is known as "grading creep" and it is quite common in commercial numismatics (which is the only place in numismatics where grading matters).

 

Shown below is a coin which I believe would grade (at the very least) "Fine" or (much more likely) "Very Fine" if its owner could be bothered to send it to a slabber for grading. This coin was graded "S.g.e" ("Sehr gut erhalten" or "VG") when it was sold by Adolph Hess in 1932 ("Dubletten Russischer Museen", Katalog 210, Lot 396).

 

Again, this is an example of "grading creep" - VG in 1932 to a probable VF today. The coin hasn't changed, but grading standards certainly have.

 

[one-kuna]

lot 1001 IS NOT EXTREMELY FINE and

above unsuitable sample has very little connection to the substance of my post regards in a particular lot 1001

[RW Julian]

I believe that this is an unfair criticism. When numeric grading first appeared on US coins, a grade better than "MS-65" was rarely seen. But today, "MS-67" or even "MS-70" coins are seen frequently.

 

What happened? Did the coins somehow improve themselves over the years? Obviously not. What happened is what is known as "grading creep" and it is quite common in commercial numismatics (which is the only place in numismatics where grading matters).

 

Shown below is a coin which I believe would grade (at the very least) "Fine" or (much more likely) "Very Fine" if its owner could be bothered to send it to a slabber for grading. This coin was graded "S.g.e" ("Sehr gut erhalten" or "VG") when it was sold by Adolph Hess in 1932 ("Dubletten Russischer Museen", Katalog 210, Lot 396). Again, this is an example of "grading creep" - VG in 1932 to a probable VF today. The coin hasn't changed, but grading standards certainly have.

The term “gradeflation” is also seen on occasion. However, in all fairness to modern graders

the quality of strike is now sometimes considered. The 1716 ducats were not especially well

struck and this needs to be taken into account for grading. I tend to agree with the VF rating

for the coin shown with this post.

 

RWJ

[one-kuna]

because the grading has been changed since however lot 1001 can not be speculated as EXTREMELY FINE

 

(sample with 1716 is unsuitable in current discussion and has no connection to the substance of my post for 2010 sale)