bobh Posted September 7, 2010 Report Share Posted September 7, 2010 Is there anyone else who thinks there is something strange about this one, or is it just me? 50 kopecks 1898 Hint: Look at how thick the obverse rim is (much too thick, IMHO). Then look at the tip of the bust and compare it with some known genuine coins here: http://m-dv.ru/catalog/id,418/all-prohod.html The point of the bust looks too round to me on the GM coin. Also, on genuine coins the loops in the last "8" of the date are more open than the first one (but just very slightly so). I can't see any difference between the "8"s on the GM coin. Finally, the striking around the reverse denticles at the bottom (edge beneath the date) looks very uneven, something very unlikely for such a small number of coins struck. Even if there were 200 and not 10 minted, there should have been only one die per side, and none of the other coin pictures I have seen show such uneven striking. I'm always suspicious when these coins turn up in any kind of condition less than MS. After all, they were reportedly struck only in proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW Julian Posted September 7, 2010 Report Share Posted September 7, 2010 Is there anyone else who thinks there is something strange about this one, or is it just me? 50 kopecks 1898 Perhaps a Paris striking with the edge changed from * to mintmaster initials. One would think that this might be reasonably easy to do compared to changing the date on the surface of a coin. I agree with bobh that the truncation seems wrong for this to be a genuine 1898 St. Petersburg issue. I also agree that only one pair of dies would have been used for the short run of proofs for collectors. RWJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobh Posted September 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted September 7, 2010 Perhaps a Paris striking with the edge changed from * to mintmaster initials. One would think that this might be reasonably easy to do compared to changing the date on the surface of a coin. I agree with bobh that the truncation seems wrong for this to be a genuine 1898 St. Petersburg issue. I also agree that only one pair of dies would have been used for the short run of proofs for collectors. RWJ The date would have to have been altered in any case because 1898 poltinas were only struck in St. Petersburg. 1896 has a rim of similar thickness to the GM coin, and it might be hard to see traces of the 6 underneath an 8 on top (as compared to 5 or 7). I am more inclined to think it could be an altered 1896-AG coin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted September 7, 2010 Report Share Posted September 7, 2010 I'm curious how this coin compares to MiM 58 lot 419. Does anyone have large pictures saved? Also, there's this coin (not sure that I like it, but...): http://coins.su/forum/index.php?showtopic=30810&view=&hl=50%20%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%BA%201898%20%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0&fromsearch=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted September 7, 2010 Report Share Posted September 7, 2010 Also, why is there a fake Sestroretsk rubel (lot 5159), and why is it estimated at 1200 Euro? http://www.gmcoinart.de/index.php?area=auctions&content=detailansicht&AuID=126&KaID=44288&ObID=1046176810&img=1&moveto=44288&e= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE MOULDING Posted September 8, 2010 Report Share Posted September 8, 2010 Also, why is there a fake Sestroretsk rubel (lot 5159), and why is it estimated at 1200 Euro? http://www.gmcoinart.de/index.php?area=auctions&content=detailansicht&AuID=126&KaID=44288&ObID=1046176810&img=1&moveto=44288&e= Gorny seems to have a thing for these fake Sestroretsks and has been selling them for many years. They're always appallingly crude, but for some reason they sell. They sold a 1771, almost as bad as this one, in Sale 173, Lot 8396, for 9000EUR (against an estimate of 2000), and sold another 1771 in 1997 in Sale 86, Lot 2258 (Lot 2257 was Brekke's 1771 Novodel). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted September 8, 2010 Report Share Posted September 8, 2010 Is there anyone else who thinks there is something strange about this one, or is it just me? Bobh, this poltinnik 1898 AG-AG came from MiM auction 58 lot 419 ( thank you Alexq ), was auctioned there with expert certificate signed by I V Shiriakov (chief of numismatic department of the State Historical Museum, Moscow) - hard to argue now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobh Posted September 8, 2010 Author Report Share Posted September 8, 2010 Bobh, this poltinnik 1898 AG-AG came from MiM auction 58 lot 419 ( thank you Alexq ), was auctioned there with expert certificate signed by I V Shiriakov (chief of numismatic department of the State Historical Museum, Moscow) - hard to argue now I assume that the State Historical Museum has at least one genuine 1898 50 kopeck piece for comparison, but nevertheless I see differences that shouldn't be there. As to GM selling fake coins, just last year I convinced them to withdraw some obviously fake 1899 ten rouble gold coins. So it might be possible to get the fake Sestroretsk rouble removed, who knows? Besides, they clearly state that it is a "Sammleranfertigung" (meaning essentially "collector's replica"), being careful to avoid using the term "Novodel". Anyone who would pay more than €10 for this hunk of metal -- well, it's their money, but they can't complain that they didn't get an original Sestroretsk for it because it isn't advertised as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobh Posted September 8, 2010 Author Report Share Posted September 8, 2010 Also, there's this coin (not sure that I like it, but...): http://coins.su/forum/index.php?showtopic=30810&view=&hl=50%20%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%BA%201898%20%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0&fromsearch=1 Thanks for the link, alexbq2. Looking at the coin illustrated in the Russian forum, I see traces of a "5" or perhaps a "9" underneath the "8" on that coin. Also, I don't like the bust. The rim dimensions seem more consistent with those of 1898, but 1899-AG had thinner rims than 1896, too. Also, the coin is struck slightly off-center ... strange for an issue which was meant mostly for presentation to collectors. I would say it is an altered 1899-AG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW Julian Posted September 8, 2010 Report Share Posted September 8, 2010 The date would have to have been altered in any case because 1898 poltinas were only struck in St. Petersburg. 1896 has a rim of similar thickness to the GM coin, and it might be hard to see traces of the 6 underneath an 8 on top (as compared to 5 or 7). I am more inclined to think it could be an altered 1896-AG coin. For some reason I was thinking, without checking a reference, that the Paris Mint struck 1898 poltinas. RWJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW Julian Posted September 8, 2010 Report Share Posted September 8, 2010 Thanks for the link, alexbq2. Looking at the coin illustrated in the Russian forum, I see traces of a "5" or perhaps a "9" underneath the "8" on that coin. Also, I don't like the bust. The rim dimensions seem more consistent with those of 1898, but 1899-AG had thinner rims than 1896, too. Also, the coin is struck slightly off-center ... strange for an issue which was meant mostly for presentation to collectors. I would say it is an altered 1899-AG. In the 1930s an 1802 or 1803 U.S. silver dollar was expertly altered to 1805, a hitherto unknown date. The date was carefully examined by several experts in the early 1960s and no one could detect any problems. Finally someone compared other details of the earlier dollars and discovered that the date had to have been altered. RWJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.