Jump to content
CoinPeople.com

5kop1763EM monogram variants


sigistenz
 Share

Recommended Posts

The monogram on the 5kop1763EM thoughout 1796EM shows the I superposing the E.

I found however a 5kop1763EM where it is the other way round: The E superposes the I. In my opinion this is quite exceptional.

Can anyone report other EM dates with the E over I variant? Thank you, Sigi

 

5kop1763emiovereexplain.jpg

 

5kop1763emeoveriexplain.jpg:ninja:

 

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Sigi, and congratulations on your very interesting article in the last newsletter of the JRNS concerning the 1778-1779 EM eagle varieties of the 5 Kopeck coins! ;)

 

As to the monogram, it is indeed a very interesting variety, and apparently unlisted in any of the major references AFAICT. You have asked this question a while ago (maybe 2 years or more?) As I recall, you pointed out that the KM coins, I believe it was, all have the E over the I. Looking at the two coins you illustrate here, it looks like the entire monogram of the E over I coin is slightly different than the other one ... especially the upper curve of the I.

 

We know that in the 18th century, the devices such as eagle necks, legs, monogram, etc. were not embedded in the die in one piece from a single hub but were punched into the (working?) dies individually. I suppose it is entirely possible that there was a monogram punch which was intended for the Suzun mint (i.e. KM, or Kolivan) lying around at Ekaterinburg ...

 

Does anyone know whether the device punches were prepared in a central location (supposedly Moscow, St.Peterburg or Ekaterinburg) and shipped out to the branch mints later, or were they prepared locally? It would seem more logical to me that they would have been prepared in one of the central mints and then shipped out to the branch mints for impressing the dies. In that case, it could be a matter of the central mint shipping the wrong punch. At any rate, it is hard to assume that the differences in design were intentional ... (which raises the question: Why aren't there more of these EM with E over I? :ninja: )

 

(Steve??? Bob Julian???)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Sigi, and congratulations on your very interesting article in the last newsletter of the JRNS concerning the 1778-1779 EM eagle varieties of the 5 Kopeck coins!

As to the monogram, it is indeed a very interesting variety, and apparently unlisted in any of the major references AFAICT. You have asked this question a while ago (maybe 2 years or more?) As I recall, you pointed out that the KM coins, I believe it was, all have the E over the I. Looking at the two coins you illustrate here, it looks like the entire monogram of the E over I coin is slightly different than the other one ... especially the upper curve of the I.

We know that in the 18th century, the devices such as eagle necks, legs, monogram, etc. were not embedded in the die in one piece from a single hub but were punched into the (working?) dies individually. I suppose it is entirely possible that there was a monogram punch which was intended for the Suzun mint (i.e. KM, or Kolivan) lying around at Ekaterinburg ...

Does anyone know whether the device punches were prepared in a central location (supposedly Moscow, St.Peterburg or Ekaterinburg) and shipped out to the branch mints later, or were they prepared locally? It would seem more logical to me that they would have been prepared in one of the central mints and then shipped out to the branch mints for impressing the dies. In that case, it could be a matter of the central mint shipping the wrong punch. At any rate, it is hard to assume that the differences in design were intentional ... (which raises the question: Why aren't there more of these EM with E over I?

The discovery is certainly an interesting one but I do not think that different punches were involved.

I think that even the reverse initials were composed of several punches and it was simply a matter of

the order which they were used. I suspect that the engravers, and there had to have been several,

were given orders to use the punches in a certain order and the piece posted by Sigi shows that such

directions were not always followed.

 

RWJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Sigi, and congratulations on your very interesting article in the last newsletter of the JRNS concerning the 1778-1779 EM eagle varieties of the 5 Kopeck coins! ;)

 

As to the monogram, it is indeed a very interesting variety, and apparently unlisted in any of the major references AFAICT. You have asked this question a while ago (maybe 2 years or more?) As I recall, you pointed out that the KM coins, I believe it was, all have the E over the I. Looking at the two coins you illustrate here, it looks like the entire monogram of the E over I coin is slightly different than the other one ... especially the upper curve of the I.

 

We know that in the 18th century, the devices such as eagle necks, legs, monogram, etc. were not embedded in the die in one piece from a single hub but were punched into the (working?) dies individually. I suppose it is entirely possible that there was a monogram punch which was intended for the Suzun mint (i.e. KM, or Kolivan) lying around at Ekaterinburg ...

 

Does anyone know whether the device punches were prepared in a central location (supposedly Moscow, St.Peterburg or Ekaterinburg) and shipped out to the branch mints later, or were they prepared locally? It would seem more logical to me that they would have been prepared in one of the central mints and then shipped out to the branch mints for impressing the dies. In that case, it could be a matter of the central mint shipping the wrong punch. At any rate, it is hard to assume that the differences in design were intentional ... (which raises the question: Why aren't there more of these EM with E over I? :ninja: )

 

(Steve??? Bob Julian???)

Thank you, Bob. As to the KM coins, they also show the normal I over the E, but the other way round occurs there from time to time, my example was a pair of 1789KM both ways. BTW there weren't yet KM dies in 1763 as that mint started with the series only in 1781.

With AM the E over I is rare, I have only one pair, 1789AM both ways. With MM you find both alignments, I have a pair of 1764MM, also a pair each of 1765CM and 1766СПМ. On the other hand, TM only shows the otherwise unfamiliar E over I as far as I have seen.

In my opinion it was the St.Petersburg mint which normally supplied the master dies (?) Sigi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The discovery is certainly an interesting one but I do not think that different punches were involved.

I think that even the reverse initials were composed of several punches and it was simply a matter of

the order which they were used. I suspect that the engravers, and there had to have been several,

were given orders to use the punches in a certain order and the piece posted by Sigi shows that such

directions were not always followed.

 

RWJ

Dear Bob, as the I - E or E - I monogram is interlaced, with portions overlying or underlying alternately, it is hard to imagine how that could have been done with punches?

I mean none of the letters E or I could have been punched one after the other because they always are interlaced. :ninja: Sigi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Bob, as the I - E or E - I monogram is interlaced, with portions overlying or underlying alternately, it is hard to imagine how that could have been done with punches?

I mean none of the letters E or I could have been punched one after the other because they always are interlaced. :ninja: Sigi

I've been thinking about how this might be done. To me, it looks like the depth to which a punch is sunk into the die is more important than the relative order. If two thin elements such as the curves in the monogram cross each other, the deeper of the two in the die will appear to be the top-most element. I think it doesn't matter which is sunk first. But it is only my theory, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The spacing on the two coins (for the E I combination) is not the same, indicating at the

very least two different punches. BobH may well be correct that it was the difference in

how deep a given punch was used as opposed to the order. I am still of the opinion,

however, that several punches were used to create the E I monogram.

 

The illustrations shown by Sigi are certainly important as they well illustrate the questions

that remain about the piataks under Catherine II.

 

RWJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have anything to contribute on the monogram, but I just read Sigistenz's article, and would like to :ninja:

 

Thank you everybody - and happy hunting ;) Sigi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The E over I

5kop1763em.jpg

 

Hi, welcome here Andrej (do I remember correctly?). Your coin is probably from the same dies as mine !

Thank you for showing and looking forward to more from your side :ninja: Sigi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...