bobh Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 We recently had a discussion about an 1898 poltina which was certified as genuine, yet the question remained as to whether or not this was a proof coin. Here is a 1903 specimen offered in the upcoming New York Sale: 1903 poltina It was certified by NGC as having 'UNC details" and described as "Lightly toned over moderate hairlines." I remember back in 2006 seeing a slabbed 1903 poltina, also sold in the New York Sale, which was graded by NGC as proof (IIRC), but described as having "prooflike fields, uncirculated". At the time, I agreed with the auction description and didn't think the coin was actually a proof, but merely prooflike (Note: the coin was not described as slabbed in the catalog, but when I went to the offices of Dr. Hans Voegtli in Basle to view the coins, it was in a NGC slab). According to at least two references, both 1898 and 1903 issues were proof-only. It is very hard, if not impossible, to tell if a coin might have been struck as a proof if it has patina such as this one. At the same time, I have seen at least four or five specimens offered for sale at various auctions: NY Sale 2006 Künker 2008 NGSA 2008 NY Sale 2010 and possibly more. These were definitely all different coins, too. One of them (in the Künker auction) had been lacquered ("zaponiert"). All this leads me to believe that there must have been more than 19 coins struck (or merely 10 of the 1898 issue) because we've seen almost half of them now! Indeed, it seems easier to find one of these than an uncirculated 50 kopeck coin of almost any other year before 1910. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW Julian Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 We recently had a discussion about an 1898 poltina which was certified as genuine, yet the question remained as to whether or not this was a proof coin. Here is a 1903 specimen offered in the upcoming New York Sale:1903 poltina It was certified by NGC as having 'UNC details" and described as "Lightly toned over moderate hairlines." I remember back in 2006 seeing a slabbed 1903 poltina, also sold in the New York Sale, which was graded by NGC as proof (IIRC), but described as having "prooflike fields, uncirculated". At the time, I agreed with the auction description and didn't think the coin was actually a proof, but merely prooflike (Note: the coin was not described as slabbed in the catalog, but when I went to the offices of Dr. Hans Voegtli in Basle to view the coins, it was in a NGC slab). According to at least two references, both 1898 and 1903 issues were proof-only. It is very hard, if not impossible, to tell if a coin might have been struck as a proof if it has patina such as this one. At the same time, I have seen at least four or five specimens offered for sale at various auctions: NY Sale 2006 Künker 2008 NGSA 2008 NY Sale 2010 and possibly more. These were definitely all different coins, too. One of them (in the Künker auction) had been lacquered ("zaponiert"). All this leads me to believe that there must have been more than 19 coins struck (or merely 10 of the 1898 issue) because we've seen almost half of them now! Indeed, it seems easier to find one of these than an uncirculated 50 kopeck coin of almost any other year before 1910. What do you think? The figures quoted are for fiscal years but probably correct for the calendar year in question. The problem is that they are misleading. The 19 coins listed for 1903 are those coins officially distributed to various individuals or museums, such as the Grand Duke Georgii Mikhailovich and the Hermitage. In addition to the 19 pieces, however, proof sets of the silver coins were sold to collectors; the difficulty is that we have no information on how many sets were sold but perhaps a guess would be in the range of 200 pieces, give or take 50. It is also possible that collectors were able to buy individual specimens in addition to the full sets. I am of the opinion that all 1903 poltinas were issued in proof but it is quite possible that the surfaces on some pieces have been tampered with (i.e. improperly cleaned), thus the Uncirculated grade one sometimes sees. RWJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 it is not a secret that most of dealers/auction houses are members of RNS and most read its journal issue and authoritive articels by RWJ / others and as a result they most do know that 19 pieces is not correct mintage of 1903 poltina however, insted of giving truthful description and reference than more pieces known by the facts than 19 as of these days, - they using speculative motive from standard catalogs which are based on just old numbers, not modern data and discoveries why don't russian (or who specialized in russian) dealers correct Krause catalog (and others russian catalogs) in writing that 19 pieces is not correct amount for that year yes, Superioir Goodman auction had one in proof and another one in Uncirculated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobh Posted December 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 it is not a secret that most of dealers/auction houses are members of RNS and most read its journal issue and authoritive articels by RWJ / others and as a result they most do know that 19 pieces is not correct mintage of 1903 poltina Was this discussed in the JRNS before? If so, what issue was it in? yes, Superioir Goodman auction had one in proof and another one in Uncirculated Not only that, but Goodman had the complete Nicholas II series (in proof!) practically three times over, including three 1898 50 kopeck coins! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russia_coins Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 Was this discussed in the JRNS before? If so, what issue was it in? Not only that, but Goodman had the complete Nicholas II series (in proof!) practically three times over, including three 1898 50 kopeck coins! Few months ago I saw an circulated 1898 poltina on eBay for 3000$ from a ukrainian member. It looked like original. I don't know if somebody bought it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 Few months ago I saw an circulated 1898 poltina on eBay for 3000$ from a ukrainian member. It looked like original. I don't know if somebody bought it. See: http://www.coinpeople.com/index.php?showtopic=24864 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altyn Posted December 21, 2009 Report Share Posted December 21, 2009 Would it be possible for the forum members who live in NY to look at the 1903 poltina (lot 1383) and then tell us if it is proof or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.