squirrel Posted May 11, 2010 Report Share Posted May 11, 2010 Links Baldwins http://www.sixbid.com/nav.php?p=viewsale&a...id=6738&s=b St James http://www.sixbid.com/nav.php?p=viewsale&a...id=6742&s=b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IgorS Posted May 11, 2010 Report Share Posted May 11, 2010 that was a serios decision to buy such rotten coin even 4 three grands The rotten coin sold for 15,000 pounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grivna1726 Posted May 11, 2010 Report Share Posted May 11, 2010 The rotten coin sold for 15,000 pounds. Conversion to dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigistenz Posted May 12, 2010 Report Share Posted May 12, 2010 Prices Realized are up for Baldwins and St James auctions at sixbid. Hi Josh, good news for me - got outbid, still have my money Sigi - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted May 12, 2010 Report Share Posted May 12, 2010 Hi Josh, good news for me - got outbid, still have my money Sigi - glad you saved your money, Sigi! the material was very desirable, a good variety, and looked like bidding was strong. Prices seem to be warming up, from my little 1280x1024 window on the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marv Posted May 13, 2010 Report Share Posted May 13, 2010 glad you saved your money, Sigi! the material was very desirable, a good variety, and looked like bidding was strong. Prices seem to be warming up, from my little 1280x1024 window on the world. Close to $50K for a PF64 Alex III 1888 rouble; Over $10K for a PF65 1910 rouble. Over $3K for a so-so PF63 1922 RSFSR rouble. I'd say prices were strong! Makes me glad I purchased by 1910 proof rouble a long time ago. The whole (?) Montville russian collection was slabbed. I can't help but think this drove prices up. Marv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nordic gold Posted May 13, 2010 Report Share Posted May 13, 2010 I could not help noticing this at the Baldwin 65: http://www.sixbid.com/nav.php?p=viewlot&am...45&lot=2030 I started a topic here on this theme two years ago. In my opinion this specimen is less convincing than the two previous ones I know of but the text that follows this item really says the point and takes a firm stand. Maybe interestingly this specimen is said to have edge 5 while the one I photographed has edge 0 (smooth). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted May 13, 2010 Report Share Posted May 13, 2010 I could not help noticing this at the Baldwin 65: http://www.sixbid.com/nav.php?p=viewlot&am...45&lot=2030 I started a topic here on this theme two years ago. In my opinion this specimen is less convincing than the two previous ones I know of but the text that follows this item really says the point and takes a firm stand. Maybe interestingly this specimen is said to have edge 5 while the one I photographed has edge 0 (smooth). one thing ive always noticed about this so-called "missing date" pauls re-coin is that the right side of the "1793" monogram is very very weak. It is entirely possible that in MY OPINION this is a 1793 die, and the 93 did not strike up. You can even see a little ghost of the digits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grivna1726 Posted May 14, 2010 Report Share Posted May 14, 2010 I could not help noticing this at the Baldwin 65: http://www.sixbid.com/nav.php?p=viewlot&am...45&lot=2030 I started a topic here on this theme two years ago. In my opinion this specimen is less convincing than the two previous ones I know of but the text that follows this item really says the point and takes a firm stand. Maybe interestingly this specimen is said to have edge 5 while the one I photographed has edge 0 (smooth). Lot description: Russian Coins. Catherine II (1762-1796). Re-coinage by Paul I, 5-Kopecks 17xx (1793), 47.76g, edge 5, without a designation of the mint (Nizny Novgorod), last two digits of the date removed from the die (Bit 97 (R2); B 12 (RRR); Uzd 2862 (RRR)). Fine but extremely rare. We were able to find at least two other specimens of this interesting coinage bearing similar characteristics and lacking last two digits in the date. The cataloguer considers this coinage to be a special issue. £600-800 With all due respect to Baldwin's, I am not sure I understand what "special issue" means. Is it special because of the overstriking or the weak date? Does it mean that the coins were deliberately struck with a weak date for some unknown reason and then placed into circulation? How do we know that the "last two digits of the date (were) removed from the die" and not just simply filled with grease or dirt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IgorS Posted May 14, 2010 Report Share Posted May 14, 2010 ...The whole (?) Montville russian collection was slabbed. I can't help but think this drove prices up.Marv In some cases that, in other cases "ex Goodman" did the trick. Common coins sold quite high if they were labeled "ex Goodman". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nordic gold Posted May 15, 2010 Report Share Posted May 15, 2010 How do we know that the "last two digits of the date (were) removed from the die" and not just simply filled with grease or dirt? Grivna, this far I have not seen a single opinion saying that 5 kopeek 180 . variety is not a special issue but a regular one where the last digit is simply filled with grease or dirt. In theory it is still possible even with this coin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted May 15, 2010 Report Share Posted May 15, 2010 How do we know that the "last two digits of the date (were) removed from the die" and not just simply filled with grease or dirt? Grivna, this far I have not seen a single opinion saying that 5 kopeek 180 . variety is not a special issue but a regular one where the last digit is simply filled with grease or dirt. In theory it is still possible even with this coin. That is not a fair comparison. the 180 . coins are never seen as multiply overstruck, weak, smooshed, corroded, circulated examples. The 17__ (93) coin always is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nordic gold Posted May 16, 2010 Report Share Posted May 16, 2010 That is not a fair comparison. the 180 . coins are never seen as multiply overstruck, weak, smooshed, corroded, circulated examples. The 17__ (93) coin always is. I am aware this might not be the best of comparisons but then again the filling up of two digits in the date in my opinion is not the best of explanations. Even a continuos weak strike should do better. If filling up of details were a common and reliable explanation for missing details we would know of several such occasions which occured at a random pattern anywhere in the coin surface, and missing or partially missing letters, deformed busts etc. were a commonplace fenomenon. However, letters are seldom completely missing and when they are (I am thinking of wire money) the cause for this is a broken die. Another and perhaps a better example would be a 2 kopeiki piece in my collection where the third digit of the date is completely missing leaving to possibilities, either 18(1)1 or 18(2)1 (I am sorry at the moment I cannot provide any photographs). True, this coin is neither overstruck nor weakly struck, but if we once again accept the filling up of a digit to be the cause of it from this point of view I do not see why it should matter if a coin is overstruck or not. By the way, I also do not think that the removal of the digits is a convincing explanation for the missing date. For me far more logical would be to say that the digits were not there in the first place. In other words, an unfinished die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grivna1726 Posted May 16, 2010 Report Share Posted May 16, 2010 How do we know that the "last two digits of the date (were) removed from the die" and not just simply filled with grease or dirt? Grivna, this far I have not seen a single opinion saying that 5 kopeek 180 . variety is not a special issue but a regular one where the last digit is simply filled with grease or dirt. In theory it is still possible even with this coin. I am not a copper specialist and perhaps I am unaware of some information that is common knowledge to others, but I note that my question remains unanswered. I have looked at the coin image. I see no evidence of tooling in the "93" area of the die (but admittedly have not seen the coin in hand). So, I ask again, how do we KNOW that it was deliberately "removed from the die"? Similar mint defects are seen (even in coins struck today) and are generally considered as errors rather than "special issues". So why is this one so different? Or am I missing something here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grivna1726 Posted May 16, 2010 Report Share Posted May 16, 2010 By the way, I also do not think that the removal of the digits is a convincing explanation for the missing date. For me far more logical would be to say that the digits were not there in the first place. I think I can see traces of "93" on the coin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted May 16, 2010 Report Share Posted May 16, 2010 It could just be grease struck to the die and the digits didn't get struck properly. I agree - I can see the digits 93 as well. Not too sure why it went so high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE MOULDING Posted May 16, 2010 Report Share Posted May 16, 2010 It could just be grease struck to the die and the digits didn't get struck properly. I agree - I can see the digits 93 as well. Not too sure why it went so high. The price is because it's a no-mintmark. That's about right, actually. Mr. Elmen had one in Nov 2008 that went for $1450. I've seen others in the $600-$1200 range. Several known examples have very weak 93's. The coin from Moneti & Medali 31 (Lot 543) [see below] may shed more light on this. Not only does the 93 appear to be missing, a lot of the cipher from the center to the right side is also gone, in what is otherwise a fairly clean area. I think the 'missing date' and 'special issue' description is likely just sales nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted May 16, 2010 Author Report Share Posted May 16, 2010 The rotten coin sold for 15,000 pounds. God bless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted May 16, 2010 Author Report Share Posted May 16, 2010 The price went up for 5 kop 1793 Paul re-coinage because of speculation on "no-mintmark" variant which is by Uzdenikov 2862 :- GM 36.3 rare Brekke 299A:- Diakov 740 R3 Bitkin 97 R2 Ilyin - 10 rubles In a real life looking at the picture - how you can possibly write such fullish description if THIS IS NOT A VARIANT referenced to, and "93" is clearly visiable, especially "3", what is it, a next attemp to completely full prospective buyers, - then it is shame for a Firm & its assosiate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nordic gold Posted May 16, 2010 Report Share Posted May 16, 2010 So, since all opinions seem to agree that this is not a genuine type but only result of filled up numbers or rather a weak strike, remains only to explain why several coins struck with the 1793 die are that weak in this precise area. No other similar instances come to my mind. A continous weak spot on one side and in the middle of the coin area, bearing in mind that at least two different reverse dies were used (both EM and without mintmark), is a somewhat daring theory, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted June 11, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 i doubt that this kind of "variant" can appear in Bakken new book Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted August 10, 2010 Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 I’m curious if bidders realized that there was more Russian content under the Commemorative Medals section. I just accidentally found it: http://www.sixbid.com/nav.php?p=viewsale&a...search=&s=b This lot seems like quite a bargain! http://www.sixbid.com/nav.php?p=viewlot&am...45&lot=1102 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.