2 kop 1818 EM ФГ

[Nordic gold]

 

One of the surprises in the article concerning the rarity of Alexander I coppers by Steve Moulding (JRNS 89) is the 2 kopecks 1818 EM ФГ of which the following is said:

 

"In practice we have seen only 3 examples so far, all in Russia..."

 

I found this coin only last year. Of course I did not know what I was buying - for the better knowledge I now take the oppoturnity to thank Mr Moulding.

 

The condition of the coin may be nothing, but as it seems, s o f a r this is the only known specimen outside Russia.

[STEVE MOULDING]

Thanks for showing!

 

Some comments:

 

On a 'relative' basis this coin does indeed seem to be rare. I wouldn't say, however, that this is the only known specimen outside of Russia...I'm sure there are more. It's just that in the records I went through (6500+ copper coins of Alexander I) I only saw 3 (versus 46 of the 1818 NM 2K), and they all happened to be in Russia.

 

This does illustrate an important point though (and this is a general comment and not directed at Nordic Gold). By starting to look for the rarer coins, we introduce a selection bias if we don't also look for the more common coins at the same time. It's all very well for people to complain about these studies saying they've looked and have seen 5 other examples already on ebay of a relatively rare coin; to be fair they'd also have to honestly look for and count at the same time the possibly 75 examples of the more common type. My papers are 'relative rarity' studies, not absolute. To do this kind of work I gather as many records as I can in as unbiased way as I can without regard to published rarity, and just count what I see.

 

Best,

 

Steve

[BKB]

It's all very well for people to complain about these studies saying they've looked and have seen 5 other examples already on ebay of a relatively rare coin;

 

Do I really complain so much?! I think that the use of ebay and molotok in your studies helps to lessen the impact of the "common coin" problem.

 

To the topic starter:

 

I think it is wise for people to remember the mintage figures of coins like 2 kopeks of Alexander I and do the math. I am not too good at math, otherwise I would be doing something other than what I am soing right now, but I will give it a shot. There were over 60 millions of 2 kopeck coins minted on the EM mint in 1818. If we accept the ratio of 3 to 46 as the minting ratio (for argument purposes only ), then there was about 6% of EM - FG to 94% of EM-NM originally minted. Which still leaves a whooping 3.6 million coins for the EM-FG share. I may be crazy, but I think that there is more than 3 coins left in existence of that huge mintage (while it is still small in comparison to the other mint master).

 

I strongly believe that if you purchase a few mainstream catalogs (Illin, Uzdenikov catalog + Uzdenikov mintages + Bitkin, etc.) most questions as to "absolute" rarity have been answered. At least if we do not count the coppers dug up in Russia in the last 10-15 years...

[alexbq2]

I strongly believe that if you purchase a few mainstream catalogs (Illin, Uzdenikov catalog + Uzdenikov mintages + Bitkin, etc.) most questions as to "absolute" rarity have been answered. At least if we do not count the coppers dug up in Russia in the last 10-15 years...

 

I do not share your belief. While not including common mass platforms such as Molotok and eBay, may skew the relative rarity, by making popular but scarce coins appear common, and less popular scarce coins appear rare or very rare, I still think that this analysis is more accurate than most current catalogs.

 

I may be wrong but it appears to me that most Russian catalogs are copying Illyin’s work almost word for word, thus copying any mistakes that had been included, and introducing their own. IMHO, the late imperial coinage is not accurately represented in most catalogs. A few examples pop into my head. Uzdenikov lists 1911 50 kopeeks as Scarce (.), in practice it appears to be very common. I believe Uzdenikov had elevated the 1741 Denga, in the later version of his catalog to the dot level as well, as I recall Bitkin has copied that error and gave the coin R1 – once again a very common coin.

 

I think Russian numismatics, from the collector’s point of view, is overdue for a major overhaul!

[Nordic gold]

I am more than aware of the fact that exact rarity signs like "unique" or "3-4 specimens known" are true only at the moment of writing and they will be outdated sooner or later. Also "3 specimens known" should not be read as "3 specimens exist".

 

I simply took the advantage to present the specimen nr 4 until someone else does it before me. When the next coin will be announced the happy owner will have to be content to the fifth position. This is why I tried to pay your attention to the words "so far".

 

Let us assume the maths presented are to be trusted. There indeed were millions struck. I then present some more maths: according to the data shown of the location of the known specimens, the gross majority of the future specimens will also be found in Russia.

[RW Julian]

Do I really complain so much?! I think that the use of ebay and molotok in your studies helps to lessen the impact of the "common coin" problem.

 

To the topic starter: I think it is wise for people to remember the mintage figures of coins like 2 kopeks of Alexander I and do the math. I am not too good at math, otherwise I would be doing something other than what I am soing right now, but I will give it a shot. There were over 60 millions of 2 kopeck coins minted on the EM mint in 1818. If we accept the ratio of 3 to 46 as the minting ratio (for argument purposes only), then there was about 6% of EM - FG to 94% of EM-NM originally minted. Which still leaves a whooping 3.6 million coins for the EM-FG share. I may be crazy, but I think that there is more than 3 coins left in existence of that huge mintage (while it is still small in comparison to the other mint master).

 

I strongly believe that if you purchase a few mainstream catalogs (Illin, Uzdenikov catalog + Uzdenikov mintages + Bitkin, etc.) most questions as to "absolute" rarity have been answered. At least if we do not count the coppers dug up in Russia in the last 10-15 years...

Some general points:

 

1) It is not possible to determine original mintages from existing specimens. There are a

variety of reasons for this, including the fact that rare coins tend to be laid aside first by

collectors rather than common ones. The question was argued at some length in the

Numismatic Chronicle about 20 or 30 years ago and the consensus was that it could not

be done.

 

2) The pre-1917 catalogues are not as good for rarity scales as one might expect. In

addition, the Bolsheviks looted bank lock-boxes in 1917–1918 and melted down coins,

jewelry, and just about anything else that contained precious metal; that clearly skewed

rarity tables.

 

3) Many of the modern catalogues use the pre-1917 rarity tables because there is nothing

else available. It is true, however, that cataloguers such as Bitkin have been able to improve

on the earlier rarity ratings in a fair number of cases.

 

4) I spent years looking for, and never finding, coins which the standard pre-Revolutionary

references said were common. On the other hand I have also occasionally come across

more than one example of a coin thought to be rare by these very same catalogues.

 

5) Many collectors prior to 1917, just like today, tended to be secretive about their holdings. It

is only when entire collections are sold publicly that we are able to get a better idea of rarity.

The rise of the internet has enabled researchers to get a much better idea of rarity than was

possible before 1917.

 

RWJ

[BKB]

Some general points:

 

1) It is not possible to determine original mintages from existing specimens. There are a

variety of reasons for this, including the fact that rare coins tend to be laid aside first by

collectors rather than common ones. The question was argued at some length in the

Numismatic Chronicle about 20 or 30 years ago and the consensus was that it could not

be done.

 

Mr. Julian, I will start by saying that I agree with everything you say. If you re-read my post you will see this language: "If we accept the ratio of 3 to 46 as the minting ratio (for argument purposes only)" It is rather obvious that I do not advocate the point against which you are speaking. Just some math to show that even if the ratio is true, one should not take it as if there are only 3 coins in existence.

 

2) The pre-1917 catalogues are not as good for rarity scales as one might expect. In

addition, the Bolsheviks looted bank lock-boxes in 1917–1918 and melted down coins,

jewelry, and just about anything else that contained precious metal; that clearly skewed

rarity tables.

 

I do not have much information on the number of coins actually melted down. I am sure it did happen. I do have more information on the soviets selling coins at western auctions to raise good money. I also think Soviets minting coins like Gangut, platinum, 1915 ruble, and who knows what else may present a big problem. But, overall, I see that the Illin's rarity on coins minted from silver, gold and platinum, especially poltina and up, for the most part holds up. However, when it comes to copper, there was a large number of rarities dug up in the past 10-15 years. The new mine detectors are amazing. But it deteriorates rarity, not the opposite. Do not just use the pre-1917 catalogues, although I know some people that only go by Illin and GM. Use that + Uzdenikov(great articles and footnotes) + Bitkin, and you are all set (IMHO)

 

3) Many of the modern catalogues use the pre-1917 rarity tables because there is nothing

else available. It is true, however, that cataloguers such as Bitkin have been able to improve

on the earlier rarity ratings in a fair number of cases.

 

Yes, Bitkin did change the original rarities a bit, and added a lot of varieties. I think it is great and that is the reason I advise everyone to get Bitkin. However, sometimes I think he went too far...

 

4) I spent years looking for, and never finding, coins which the standard pre-Revolutionary

references said were common. On the other hand I have also occasionally come across

more than one example of a coin thought to be rare by these very same catalogues.

 

I would love to hear the stories with examples. I also have a few of those, but for the most part they are about copper coins. I think it is due to the fact that when Russians immigrated they took platinum, gold and silver. It was just easier to sell those. Therefore, the availability of a particular copper coin in the west does not represent its actual rarity. (IMHO)

 

5) Many collectors prior to 1917, just like today, tended to be secretive about their holdings. It

is only when entire collections are sold publicly that we are able to get a better idea of rarity.

The rise of the internet has enabled researchers to get a much better idea of rarity than was

possible before 1917.

 

Yes, but there is just that problem which plagues people who wish to purchase new rarities for pennies. Most common coins never show up because there is no reason selling it. Especially at auction. Ebay and molotok fix it to a certain extent. But I have a bag of stuff that I gave to my son to play with. Mostly Paul and Alexander coppers. Some Catherine. I am sure most collectors have that. It just does not pay to sell it. Thus, some common coins may look more rare on the face of a comparative study than they actually are. Therefore, I suggest that people start with catalogues, know and understand the mintage figures, understand what comparative studies are, and then use everything together to assess the rarity and the value.

 

 

RWJ

[one-kuna]

When I received the latest journal of RNS - I noticed immediately that 2 copper kopeks of 1818 EM-FG is on XR scale.

What I did is I bought fast this coin from Florida dealer which used to be mine a decade ago, but Florida dealer is making a joke of me that I am buying my coins back he purchased them from me a long time ago.

At the same time I looked at ebay and there was another sample, for BIN price of 29.95 and this auction ended soon unclear to me: was it ended by the seller or somebody bought it.

Next day I looked on molotok.ru and saw 3 more samples.

As of today there are 2 more on molotok, one is ending in couple hours ($5.00).

The thing what it bother me a lot is if 2 kopek 1818 EM-FG is common coin in all major catalogs - why I have not seen it at all in at least of 700 HUNDRED auctions all over the world I went through ??

Because it is common ??

I think there are some secret reasons unknown to us with its mintage !!

Another thing which bother me a lot is - even now the known few samples, why all of them in very low grade??

Where are better pieces ??

Mine I show BKB this morning and its condition is low as well.

This one from ebay is I think is better among others:

 

one-kuna

[BKB]

I do not share your belief. While not including common mass platforms such as Molotok and eBay, may skew the relative rarity, by making popular but scarce coins appear common, and less popular scarce coins appear rare or very rare, I still think that this analysis is more accurate than most current catalogs.

 

I may be wrong but it appears to me that most Russian catalogs are copying Illyin’s work almost word for word, thus copying any mistakes that had been included, and introducing their own. IMHO, the late imperial coinage is not accurately represented in most catalogs. A few examples pop into my head. Uzdenikov lists 1911 50 kopeeks as Scarce (.), in practice it appears to be very common. I believe Uzdenikov had elevated the 1741 Denga, in the later version of his catalog to the dot level as well, as I recall Bitkin has copied that error and gave the coin R1 – once again a very common coin.

 

I think Russian numismatics, from the collector’s point of view, is overdue for a major overhaul!

 

Very well. It is another good point. However, except for some errors, Illin was correct and is still true on most silver, gold and platinum coins. (IMXO) Copper is a different matter. The market is filled with rotten dug up copper. Even huge rarities like 1762 den'ga was dug up. As to 1762 1 kop, 1810 em-nm 1 kop and 1/2 kop, 1795 1/4 no m/m, 1776 em 1/4, there was a handful of specimens in the past 2 years alone. Yes, when it comes to dug-up rotten copper, one may reassess the rarities. However, for every rotten rarity, there are 100,000's of common rotten copper coins dug-up, but never shown to anyone. When it comes to quality coins from cabinets, I think Illin is still veryn close.

[one-kuna]

3) Many of the modern catalogues use the pre-1917 rarity tables because there is nothing

else available. It is true, however, that cataloguers such as Bitkin have been able to improve

on the earlier rarity ratings in a fair number of cases.

RWJ

 

Yes, Bitkin did change the original rarities a bit, and added a lot of varieties. I think it is great and that is the reason I advise everyone to get Bitkin. However, sometimes I think he went too far...

BKB

 

 

All of modern catalogers do nothing even close what Mr. S. Moulding has done and shared so far.

Yes, they all (catalogers) used popular pre-1917 catalogs plus hard to find ones (also pre-1917) where more variants were listed, so it can be used now in their modern issues. In addition, the huge number of auction catalogs was used to look their work more sharp and competitive. The mintages were not re-considered and triple checked in Russian archieves but left untouchable.

What surprize me more is the silence these modern catalogers keep with such compilations and think that this is what we did - you do not think so - do better !

 

one-kuna

[RW Julian]

Very well. It is another good point. However, except for some errors, Illin was correct and is still true on most silver, gold and platinum coins. (IMXO) Copper is a different matter. The market is filled with rotten dug up copper. Even huge rarities like 1762 den'ga was dug up. As to 1762 1 kop, 1810 em-nm 1 kop and 1/2 kop, 1795 1/4 no m/m, 1776 em 1/4, there was a handful of specimens in the past 2 years alone. Yes, when it comes to dug-up rotten copper, one may reassess the rarities. However, for every rotten rarity, there are 100,000's of common rotten copper coins dug-up, but never shown to anyone. When it comes to quality coins from cabinets, I think Illin is still veryn close.

In general Giel-Ilyin (1801–1904) is a good reference but there are a fair number of errors for

rarity, especially for the years after, say, 1880 when most coins were more or less readily

obtainable. This is why current studies are important – to correct or verify the old rarities.

Relying on something done a hundred years ago when better methods are available is not

the best of ideas.

 

I am well aware of the corroded copper coins that appear from time to time but these will in

due course be absorbed by the market, even if in bulk lots.

 

RWJ

[one-kuna]

Just want to add to myself-

 

modern photography in current coin catalogs is just FOR FILLING UP the missing moments of old catalogs (most with no pics)

but

DO NOT COVER the numismatic studies

 

one-kuna

[alexbq2]

Just got one:

 

 

Many thanks to Steve Moulding for collecting, analyzing and presenting his data to us. I appreciate it sincerely.

[STEVE MOULDING]

Just got one:

 

:

 

Many thanks to Steve Moulding for collecting, analyzing and presenting his data to us. I appreciate it sincerely.

Thank you Alex and congratulations on the coin

[WCO]

...

 

This does illustrate an important point though (and this is a general comment and not directed at Nordic Gold). By starting to look for the rarer coins, we introduce a selection bias if we don't also look for the more common coins at the same time. It's all very well for people to complain about these studies saying they've looked and have seen 5 other examples already on ebay of a relatively rare coin; to be fair they'd also have to honestly look for and count at the same time the possibly 75 examples of the more common type. My papers are 'relative rarity' studies, not absolute. To do this kind of work I gather as many records as I can in as unbiased way as I can without regard to published rarity, and just count what I see.

 

Best,

 

Steve

 

As far as I understand those people were complaining because they found out that "relative scarcity" does not provide reliable information about real rarity of a coin. What is the reason to measure number of appearances of one coin relative to another? Let’s say how I can use information that some rare coin may be found only once for every 297 Rubles 300 years of Romanov’s House? There was some author of numismatic literature (do not remember who it was though) who offered pricing of coins in 1913 Rubles. Obviously, this idea did not survive the time. How this "relative rarity" is different? Why not just to make a database of coins with prices realized?

 

Best regards,

 

WCO

[alexbq2]

There was some author of numismatic literature (do not remember who it was though) who offered pricing of coins in 1913 Rubles.

 

Best regards,

 

WCO

 

Unless I am confusing things, you are thinking of Kazakov's reference on Nicholas II coins. There he gives a second valuation in fractions of the 1913 Romanoff rouble.

 

As for the relative rarity, I find it very useful - it gives me more things to collect.

 

And as to the auction results, perhaps you or someone here might help me. The MIM site lists a single 1818 EM ФГ sale at the 24th auction. The result quoted is $150 for a coin in F grade. I find this hard to believe, and I think they messed up their own data. Most likely the coin did not sell at all, but I would like to confirm my suspicions. If anyone has the recorded results of the 24 sale, the lot number was 128 (unless the numbering was also mixed up).

[grivna1726]

Why not just to make a database of coins with prices realized?

Maybe because prices don't necessarily reflect actual rarity?

 

Condition is a factor and even a relatively common coin in extraordinary condition could bring a strong price.

 

Popularity is also a factor. An extremely rare piece will bring a very low price if no-one wants it.

 

If the purpose is to establish the actual availability of a coin, then it seems to me that tracking the number of appearances would be the best way to do it, rather than collecting data on prices.

[WCO]

...

As for the relative rarity, I find it very useful - it gives me more things to collect.

...

 

How “relative rarity” gives you more things to collect? Does it pay for your purchases?

 

Sorry, I do not have the info if that lot was actually sold or not. I know that in many cases in Russia items marked as sold are actually not sold.

 

WCO

[alexbq2]

How “relative rarity” gives you more things to collect? Does it pay for your purchases?

 

WCO

 

Can't find or afford the "classic rarities", but can still collect relative ones

 

And who knows, a few short years from now, the 1818 EM ФГ might become a classic!

[WCO]

Maybe because prices don't necessarily reflect actual rarity?

 

Condition is a factor and even a relatively common coin in extraordinary condition could bring a strong price.

 

Popularity is also a factor. An extremely rare piece will bring a very low price if no-one wants it.

 

If the purpose is to establish the actual availability of a coin, then it seems to me that tracking the number of appearances would be the best way to do it, rather than collecting data on prices.

 

When I said about a database I meant that it has to include straight data, not how it should be organized. It may be broken down by grades, varieties, etc., even by region of world where it was sold or by auction house or by any other factor. Do you remember Russian Cartoon: 38 parrots (38 попугаев)? That is a good example of when someone tries to measure something in other undefined units. The length of a snake is 38 parrots or 3 monkeys.

 

Agreed that "prices don't necessarily reflect actual rarity". But prices reflect all factors together such as quality, rarity, popularity, etc. Price is a complex measure of all factors about a coin. By being complex it provides more information about a coin than any "relative rarity" ever could. IMHO.

 

WCO

[WCO]

Can't find or afford the "classic rarities", but can still collect relative ones

 

And who knows, a few short years from now, the 1818 EM ФГ might become a classic!

 

Than it may be better to start collecting 1913 1 Kopeck coins in high MS grades? For every coin in MS-66 there are may be 10000 in lower grades. “Relative rarity” is so high.

 

WCO

[alexbq2]

Than it may be better to start collecting 1913 1 Kopeck coins in high MS grades? For every coin in MS-66 there are may be 10000 in lower grades. “Relative rarity” is so high.

 

WCO

 

I think people are already doing that. IMHO it started after that Kazakov book was published. I figure it's hard to tell MS-60 from MS-66 by looking at eBay pictures though (unless they are pictures of a slab). So I'm gonna stick with type and variant rarity!

[RARENUM]

I may be wrong but it appears to me that most Russian catalogs are copying Illyin’s work almost word for word, thus copying any mistakes that had been included, and introducing their own. IMHO, the late imperial coinage is not accurately represented in most catalogs. A few examples pop into my head. Uzdenikov lists 1911 50 kopeeks as Scarce (.), in practice it appears to be very common. I believe Uzdenikov had elevated the 1741 Denga, in the later version of his catalog to the dot level as well, as I recall Bitkin has copied that error and gave the coin R1 – once again a very common coin.

I can add Ilyn was copy Prices and Rarity primary for 19th century from 3 parts Blank Collection sale (early 20th sale).Rarity and prices can be change according on time catalog printed.

Rarenum.

[WCO]

...

So I'm gonna stick with type and variant rarity!

 

Many people does not understand the meaning or tend to forget about word "relative" and start thinking they collect something "rare" (even you did not say "relatively rare" but only "rarity"), but what they actually get for their collections using such information may be not rare at all. "Relatively rare" may be a common coin. It looks that information about relative rarity is more misleading than taking into the right direction. IMHO.

 

Have a good day.

 

WCO

[alexbq2]

Many people does not understand the meaning or tend to forget about word "relative" and start thinking they collect something "rare" (even you did not say "relatively rare" but only "rarity"), but what they actually get for their collections using such information may be not rare at all. "Relatively rare" may be a common coin. It looks that information about relative rarity is more misleading than taking into the right direction. IMHO.

 

Have a good day.

 

WCO

 

Everything is relative including the definition of rarity, but that’s another story.

 

IMHO Steve’s sampling is large enough to represent a somewhat accurate state of affairs. Surely BKB’s point is well taken. If this specific coin was ranked R3 in catalogs we would see many more of them at major auctions. How many it is hard to say, but Steve recorded 46 sales of the HM variety, which is not ranked high in catalogs either.

 

So I’m pretty happy with my find, and while in the greater scope this coin might not be XR (relative rarity), I think it still deserves an R or R1 in “absolute” rarity ranking.