5 kopek 1796 - large die clash and doublestrike

[bobh]

in your opinion, what would be a sequence of striking of 1796 EM piatak including cipher, double and die clash elements?

The dies might have clashed long before the overstriking. I'm not sure just yet what things are actually die clashes and what are remains of some undercoin, though. They did a pretty good job of eliminating a lot of the details before the overstrike occured, probably trying to get as clean a strike as possible.

 

On the other hand, the 10 kopeck cipher coins (undercoin for this one) were also overstruck themselves on older Catherine II pyataka. According to Brekke (p. 151, 1977 edition) only the newer 5 kopeck cipher pieces had to be made from new flans because there was no corresponding denomination which they could have used as an undercoin (would have to have been a 2-1/2 kopeck piece, but those didn't exist).

 

So we have three different coins here, and massive doubling and die clashes to boot! Each striking could have theoretically been done with clashed dies. But it is probably from the latest overstrike because it is so prominent.

[bobh]

Looked at it with my microscope tonight. I think the edge was redone from 6 to 5 ... there are definitely traces at certain parts along the edge. But it's too early to say for sure; it's also possible that the '\\\\\\\' were done recently (tooled), although nothing looks strange about it.

 

I'm just curious -- of course, there are varieties listed with either edge 5 OR 6, but none of my references are too specific about coins showing BOTH edges. Brekke does mention this, but he gives no indication of rarity for these.

 

Does anyone have more information here?

[one-kuna]

it's also possible that the '\\\\\\\' were done recently (tooled), although nothing looks strange about it.

 

recently when?

[one-kuna]

 

I'm just curious -- of course, there are varieties listed with either edge 5 OR 6, but none of my references are too specific about coins showing BOTH edges. Brekke does mention this, but he gives no indication of rarity for these.

 

Does anyone have more information here?

as I know, a partial presents of edge \\\\\\ on net's one

is used to speculate the sale and bring better money result,

but indeed rare one the one with whole \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

[alexbq2]

Looked at it with my microscope tonight. I think the edge was redone from 6 to 5 ... there are definitely traces at certain parts along the edge. But it's too early to say for sure; it's also possible that the '\\\\\\\' were done recently (tooled), although nothing looks strange about it.

 

I'm just curious -- of course, there are varieties listed with either edge 5 OR 6, but none of my references are too specific about coins showing BOTH edges. Brekke does mention this, but he gives no indication of rarity for these.

 

Does anyone have more information here?

 

As I recall, Uzdenikov mentions a mixed edge as a surest way of identifying an overstrike as it is often easier to identify than the signs of an undercoin.

 

It is my understanding, and I think I am rehashing information from one of the older threads on this forum, that there are some coins in this series, that were actually not yet struck into the cipher series but had already undergone re-edging. However they, together with the cypher 10 kopeeks, went through the complete re-coining. On such coins the mixed edge is the only sign of the coin being part of Paul's over-striking.

[bobh]

recently when?

Modern date ... but the more I look, the more it looks genuine. It looks very much like the edge of this one (look at the photo of the obverse/monogram side):

http://m-dv.ru/catalog/prohod,44771/coins,3599/type,4699/auction,74/date,2010-04-02/lot,233/photo.html

[bobh]

On the other hand, the 10 kopeck cipher coins (undercoin for this one) were also overstruck themselves on older Catherine II pyataka. According to Brekke (p. 151, 1977 edition) only the newer 5 kopeck cipher pieces had to be made from new flans because there was no corresponding denomination which they could have used as an undercoin (would have to have been a 2-1/2 kopeck piece, but those didn't exist).

 

Here is one where, in addition to the cipher coin, traces of the earlier Catherine II monogram are clearly visible on the monogram side:

http://m-dv.ru/catalog/prohod,39406/coins,3599/type,4699/auction,8/date,2010-01-30/lot,209/photo.html

 

It has to be, because the cipher monogram shows on the OTHER side.

[bobh]

As I recall, Uzdenikov mentions a mixed edge as a surest way of identifying an overstrike as it is often easier to identify than the signs of an undercoin.

 

It is my understanding, and I think I am rehashing information from one of the older threads on this forum, that there are some coins in this series, that were actually not yet struck into the cipher series but had already undergone re-edging. However they, together with the cypher 10 kopeeks, went through the complete re-coining. On such coins the mixed edge is the only sign of the coin being part of Paul's over-striking.

Thanks, alexbq2 ... I'll dig into my Uzdenikov reference some more tomorrow.

Interesting that cipher coins with edge 6 are rarer than hen's teeth, yet so many of Paul's overstrikes show traces of it.

[PeterShell]

 

Everybody can make a mistake..

 

 

Does anyone want to hear my confession?? About twenty years ago, by accident, I sold Ekaterina II 5 copper kopeks KM mint with Hutten-Chupsky mark "C" as a regular pyatak for ten backs

 

With all respects,

 

 

one-kuna

 

 

BRAVO !!!

Did I tell you to open the "corner of good stories" ?

I have one about "Familly roubel"...

[bobh]

"Family Rouble" certainly sounds interesting ... maybe you could start a new thread?

 

----------------

 

Today I was able to take some nice pictures of my newest acquisition. You can see them all on my website here:

http://hairgrove-goldberg.com/Gallery/russia-paul-restrike-1796em

 

For a starter, here are a couple of edge pictures (there is much more detail on the high-res. photos of these on my website, though):

 

 

 

Although it will take some time to find out all the details on the undercoin, double strike, etc., I think that this picture, together with the previous discoveries Steve and Alex have made, plus the weight, diameter and thickness of this interesting little specimen which I posted earlier in this thread, are enough to assume that this is indeed one of Paul's overstrikes!

[bobh]

Here is all I could come up with on the reverse so far. It appears that the 10k cipher coin would have to have been struck with rotated dies turned approx. 12 degrees counter-clockwise (and somewhat off-center as well).

 

EDIT: I think that both the cipher strike as well as the Paul overstrike were off-center, but not in the same direction. Perhaps this would explain why one part of the coin at the edge appears to have broken off; perhaps they filed it a bit to make it more even, which would account for the smaller diameter and the lesser weight?

 

 

It could be that what appears to be double striking was, in fact, remains of the strike from the first undercoin which was also a Catherine II pyatak. Especially in the area around the left wing, I think this is probably the case. The double strike at the crown on the overstrike, however, was probably from the later striking. It gets quite confusing sometimes!

 

Here is the original rotated image for comparison:

 

[bobh]

Here's a detail image right at the top edge of the obverse (monogram side):

 

 

There is nothing in the design of the reverse (eagle side) die at that position which could have produced this as the result of clashed dies. And the wreath on the same side is in an entirely different place, so it can't be the result of a double strike.

 

Therefore, I am concluding that this is a remnant of the first undercoin.

[alexbq2]

Great photos!

[one-kuna]

 

it is good that you got the voice who woke you up and told you to buy this coin;

my voice said to me - don't even bother, you had these in top condition and you will have them more in days to come

[bobh]

Here is where I am now with the obverse. Again, I can't help but believe that the cipher was struck very much off-center. Everything lines up when you superimpose the divider and the "K", but that's really far to the left!

 

The first image has the elements I can now see in red superimposed (well, I can't really see the "1" in the denomination, but the "0" is pretty clear). The cipher's date was hopelessly obliterated by the clashing of the globe from the other side and by the wreath devices. The letters "Ye" and "E" are both fairly clear because there must have been some corrosion or dark patina which got smashed into the coin at that spot, and the darkness remains. There is a puzzling little circle which I have marked in green; I believe it is from the first undercoin (Catherine II pyatak). It could be the remains of a digit "0", "9" or "6" in the date, or it might have been one of the smaller loops in the monogram. At least I know that it is on the right side of the coin because I have already shown the remnants of the wreath ornament right above the crown.

 

Here is the first picture -- the other one shows the whole cipher coin (from a Künker auction) superimposed on my coin with 50% transparency. The "K" and the "Ye" are courtesy of alexbq2 and Steve Moulding, of course (in that order)!

 

 

And the 50% superimposition -- I didn't line up the "K"'s exactly because during the striking process, the coin would have expanded, and the K would have moved the most, relative to the center of the coin:

 

 

And once again, here is the rotated obverse without any superimpositions:

 

 

[one-kuna]

It could be the remains of a digit "0", "9" or "6" in the date, or it might have been one of the smaller loops in the monogram.

looks to me much to be a smaller loop than a digit