cataloguers copy mistakes

[sigistenz]

In a recent post our friend alexbq mentioned his belief that cataloguers copy earlier mistakes. I think this is only too true. As an example, the Siberian 10kop1781KM is often refered to as "rare last year". In fact, Uzdenikov gives it a dot and Bitkin a R, both meaning "scarce".

I evaluated the 56 auction catalogs of World Wide Coins of California (Jim Elmen) which always feature a superb Russia section. Over the 28 years, nearly 200 pieces of Siberian 10 kopek were offered there with their pictures. Of course that number is too small to be fully representative, but it gives an idea.

As we see the 10kop1781KM is not rare at all, but rather abundant. The attibute "scarce" or even "rare" would be merited by quite some others.

I take the opportunity to present my latest acquisition, the 10kop1767KM edge 6 (\\\\\\\\\\\\\), Bitkin gives it a R like the 1781.

Note that the 1767KM edge 6 has not been seen offered there a single time. Brag, brag ... Sigi

[alexbq2]

Note that the 1767KM edge 6 has not been seen offered there a single time. Brag, brag ... Sigi

 

There was 1 sold on eBay last night

[sigistenz]

There was 1 sold on eBay last night

 

No! That was edge 1 (/////////)

[alexbq2]

No! That was edge 1 (/////////)

 

It was definitely rope edge, I could not tell more.

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=190378861679

[sigistenz]

It was definitely rope edge, I could not tell more.

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=190378861679

 

Yes, rope edge . The difference is: edge 1 ////////// common, the coin sold last night

and the rare variant: edge 6 \\\\\\\\\\\\\ rarely encountered. Sigi

[bobh]

Yes, rope edge . The difference is: edge 1 ////////// common, the coin sold last night

and the rare variant: edge 6 \\\\\\\\\\\\\ rarely encountered. Sigi

I wonder how often this is overlooked? It is really a little amazing ... regardless of which way you turn the coin, the orientation of the edge stays the same! I sometimes wondered if it was merely by turning the flan over before striking the obverse/reverse (assuming that the edge was already struck). But it isn't that simple ... there are really two different edges.

 

Nice catch, Sigi! Hope you only paid edge 1 money for it?

[sigistenz]

I wonder how often this is overlooked? It is really a little amazing ... regardless of which way you turn the coin, the orientation of the edge stays the same! I sometimes wondered if it was merely by turning the flan over before striking the obverse/reverse (assuming that the edge was already struck). But it isn't that simple ... there are really two different edges.

 

Nice catch, Sigi! Hope you only paid edge 1 money for it?

It was not cheap but I am happy with the coin, I could replace my earlier edge 6 which I had cleaned sick

and which I could not look at any more. Sigi

[alexbq2]

Well, if you want to give it away... I'll be happy to give it a home.

[sigistenz]

Well, if you want to give it away... I'll be happy to give it a home.

 

Alex, sorry, it is already sold Sigi

 

-

[one-kuna]

In a recent post our friend alexbq mentioned his belief that cataloguers copy earlier mistakes. I think this is only too true. As an example, the Siberian 10kop1781KM is often refered to as "rare last year". In fact, Uzdenikov gives it a dot and Bitkin a R, both meaning "scarce".

I evaluated the 56 auction catalogs of World Wide Coins of California (Jim Elmen) which always feature a superb Russia section. Over the 28 years, nearly 200 pieces of Siberian 10 kopek were offered there with their pictures. Of course that number is too small to be fully representative, but it gives an idea.

As we see the 10kop1781KM is not rare at all, but rather abundant. The attibute "scarce" or even "rare" would be merited by quite some others.

 

I take the opportunity to present my latest acquisition, the 10kop1767KM edge 6 (\\\\\\\\\\\\\), Bitkin gives it a R like the 1781.

Note that the 1767KM edge 6 has not been seen offered there a single time. Brag, brag ... Sigi

 

As I think to this evaluating step plus my vision to the rarity scale in both catalogs - it is light speculation of both authors to present something new in this series

[sigistenz]

As I think to this evaluating step plus my vision to the rarity scale in both catalogs - it is light speculation of both authors to present something new in this series

 

Hi, I had hoped for your expert opinion but - sorry, what do you mean exactly? Sigi

[squirrel]

As I think to this evaluating step plus my vision to the rarity scale in both catalogs - it is light speculation of both authors to present something new in this series

 

I think he is stating his disagreement that new research can be as valid as the "old standard"

 

correct?

[sigistenz]

I think he is stating his disagreement that new research can be as valid as the "old standard"

 

correct?

Thank you Josh!

Please, one-kuna, your comment is not quite clear. Sigi

[BKB]

... I evaluated the 56 auction catalogs of World Wide Coins of California (Jim Elmen) which always feature a superb Russia section. Over the 28 years, nearly 200 pieces of Siberian 10 kopek were offered there with their pictures. Of course that number is too small to be fully representative, but it gives an idea.

As we see the 10kop1781KM is not rare at all, but rather abundant. The attibute "scarce" or even "rare" would be merited by quite some others.

 

 

 

Right, it gives that idea. It also gives an idea that 1767 no m/m is of equal rarity to 1768 and to 1771, and the second rarest coin in the whole series is 1772 km. It is an idea, all right..., but do you think it is a correct idea? Thus, I would think twice before making any definitive statements as to rarity based on this limited study. By the way, speaking of the standard catalogs, i think 1781km is listed as a common coin by Mr. Brekke...

 

Catalogers/auctions prefer to list a rare coin over a common coin. There is always limited space and it costs money to photograph and catalog a coin. Thus any study of common coins (and most of the Siberian 10 kop pieces are common) based solely on auction catalogs will be biased and useless, because it will appear that the most common and cheapest coins are the rarest.

[alexbq2]

Catalogers/auctions prefer to list a rare coin over a common coin. There is always limited space and it costs money to photograph and catalog a coin. Thus any study of common coins (and most of the Siberian 10 kop pieces are common) based solely on auction catalogs will be biased and useless, because it will appear that the most common and cheapest coins are the rarest.

 

True in general. But in case of the Siberian 10 kopeeks, a popular and pricey coin, would any auction house truly turn one away?

[BKB]

True in general. But in case of the Siberian 10 kopeeks, a popular and pricey coin, would any auction house truly turn one away?

 

Either that, or 1772 is more rare than 1767 no m/m. Take your pick...

[sigistenz]

Either that, or 1772 is more rare than 1767 no m/m. Take your pick...

 

The Siberian 10 kop coins are important and popular enough to be depicted and offered separately - they are only put into a lot when in the state of worthless scrap. As there are sometimes pretty worn 10 kop pieces offered with pictures in the WWCoC catalogs, I don't think that any them would be refused there.

So I in my opinion the 56 Elmen catalogs have become a valuable reference as all the coins are pictured and genuine. A count out of eBay offerings would not be that reliable, as there are fakes around.

Yes, the 10kop1772KM is less encountered than the 1767--. (I have evaluated over 700 of the 10 kop coins from reliable sources, mostly auction catalogs - except eBay, from the reason mentioned above). 1772 is the scarcest date. Of course, the 1767-- is more expensive. A possible reason is that many people collect by type. They would consider the 1766-- and 1767-- as the lettered edge type and try to get one (there are 16 in my chart). Those people would also be content with a single nice 10kopKM (181 in the chart). Only the date collector would bother about the 1772. The coin is not as popular as the lettered edge - just one of 15 possible KM dates - a sleeper.

You remember the Aalborg collection sold in Copenhagen as Russia I, II, II and IV. Aalborg cared for condition.

He had two 1767-- (one of them worn) and one 1772KM in poor state, probably because he hadn't found a nice one. Sigi

[alexbq2]

It's an interesting question! I looked at this site: http://m-dv.ru/catalog/id,4120/all-prohod.html

 

They have:

 

6 - 1767 no KM

6 - 1772

47 - 1781

 

Clearly, a larger statistical sample produces more accurate results, but Sigistenz's analysis is correct. 1772 is at least as rare as 1767 no mint mark.

 

A follow up question. Who here owns 1772 or 1767 no KM?

[BKB]

It's an interesting question! I looked at this site: http://m-dv.ru/catalog/id,4120/all-prohod.html

 

They have:

 

6 - 1767 no KM

6 - 1772

47 - 1781

 

Clearly, a larger statistical sample produces more accurate results, but Sigistenz's analysis is correct. 1772 is at least as rare as 1767 no mint mark.

 

A follow up question. Who here owns 1772 or 1767 no KM?

 

I do not want to get into this whole arguing thing about rarity. Rarity is something very subjective. Moreover, most arguments here tend to degenerate into something ugly. Any study which uses only auction results will be useless when it comes to common coins. Search some very common stuff like 1912 2 kop and you will see that it is amazingly rare when it comes to auction sales. I personally do not think that there is a rare Siberian 10 kop besides the original 64. But that is just my opinion and should be taken as such.

 

I have both (66 and 67) no M/M coins. Never cared to pick up a 72. I could buy one right now, if I wanted to. For a fraction of the cost of even the 66, let alone 67... If anyone thinks that it is a rare coin, they can go here and get one for $450: http://rustypennies.com/catalog/catherine_II.html.

[one-kuna]

Hi, I had hoped for your expert opinion but - sorry, what do you mean exactly? Sigi

Sorry with the late respond.

Baron Shoduar in his book published the mintages (keep in mind that this book was issued early before Georgii Mikhailovich Corpus).

Here is a Siberian table: it shows the total sum of all denominations yearly.

Also, I am holding the Shoduar book plate with this numbers and comparing to Uzdenikov/Bitkin -

same data number by number taken from Shoduar. Now question, what study had Bitkin and Uzdenikov in the past that gave them a push to upgrade some Siberians, especially 1781 with average mintage. See 1766 and 1780 mintages.

 

1766 - 023227 rubles

1767 - 258954 rubles

1768 - 170859 rubles

1769 - 200070 rubles

1770 - 250028 rubles

1771 - 250059 rubles

1772 - 250095 rubles

1773 - 253411 rubles

1774 - 250200 rubles

1775 - 300000 rubles

1776 - 300200 rubles

1777 - 300000 rubles

1778 - 300000 rubles

1779 - 300000 rubles

1780 - 105850 rubles

1781 - 286703 rubles

 

Isn't the 1781 KM apparently cataloged in Bitkin/Uzdenikov as a speculative motive of the last year of issue or just because someone said to them something what we do not know but suppose to know?

 

one-kuna

[sigistenz]

Sorry with the late respond.

Baron Shoduar in his book published the mintages (keep in mind that this book was issued early before Georgii Mikhailovich Corpus).

Here is a Siberian table: it shows the total sum of all denominations yearly.

Also, I am holding the Shoduar book plate with this numbers and comparing to Uzdenikov/Bitkin -

same data number by number taken from Shoduar. Now question, what study had Bitkin and Uzdenikov in the past that gave them a push to upgrade some Siberians, especially 1781 with average mintage. See 1766 and 1780 mintages.

 

1766 - 023227 rubles

1767 - 258954 rubles

1768 - 170859 rubles

1769 - 200070 rubles

1770 - 250028 rubles

1771 - 250059 rubles

1772 - 250095 rubles

1773 - 253411 rubles

1774 - 250200 rubles

1775 - 300000 rubles

1776 - 300200 rubles

1777 - 300000 rubles

1778 - 300000 rubles

1779 - 300000 rubles

1780 - 105850 rubles

1781 - 286703 rubles

 

Isn't the 1781 KM apparently cataloged in Bitkin/Uzdenikov as a speculative motive of the last year of issue or just because someone said to them something what we do not know but suppose to know?

 

one-kuna

Mintage figures are given for the budget year which ran from April to April, whereas the coins showed the current year. Low or high mintage figures do not necessarily reflect the number of coins displaying that date.

Take for example the 15 kop 1888 (with 7 minted) which is not rare at all.

As to your Siberian listing above - the 1766 is far more often encountered than the low mintage cipher would suggest. So in my opinion true evaluation can only be established by observing the appearance on the market.

@BKB

As one cannot compare apples with pears, one cannot compare the appearance in auction catalogs of the 2kop1912 with any Siberian 10 kop. Most auction houses would refuse the 2kop1912 or put it in a lot. But any Siberian 10 kop would always be accepted and listed. The appearance of the Siberian 10 kop dates can only be compared with one another. And that is what I tried in my posting. Sigi

[one-kuna]

Mintage figures are given for the budget year which ran from April to April, whereas the coins showed the current year.

was this applied for siberian coinage back to 18 century and from what source

[sigistenz]

was this applied for siberian coinage back to 18 century and from what source

Oops - I read it somewhere a while ago, maybe in the JRNS?

[one-kuna]

Oops - I read it somewhere a while ago, maybe in the JRNS?

 

it can be applied for 19 century coins ( 18 century)

[sigistenz]

it can be applied for 19 century coins ( 18 century)

But --- how to explain the relatively frequent appearance of the 1766

(with only 1/10 of the mintage of what is listed for all the other years) ?

Also the price of the 1766 is generally lower than 1767 - do you agree ? This is to say that the early mintage figures cannot be trusted.