bobh Posted September 22, 2010 Report Share Posted September 22, 2010 The digit "3" in the date looks wrong; although you CAN see traces of the "0" and of the earlier date, I think they were done later by tooling: 5 kopecks, 1793-EM (Paul overstrike???) What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IgorS Posted September 22, 2010 Report Share Posted September 22, 2010 If I was tooling it, I would tool it into 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted September 22, 2010 Report Share Posted September 22, 2010 If I was tooling it, I would tool it into 4 Probably just some corrosion. Why would anyone tool it from a rare to the most common date? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobh Posted September 22, 2010 Author Report Share Posted September 22, 2010 If I was tooling it, I would tool it into 4 Actually, I meant the date of the undercoin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IgorS Posted September 22, 2010 Report Share Posted September 22, 2010 Actually, I meant the date of the undercoin. I was just having a little harmless fun I see what you mean now, but the eagle looks correct for the re-overstrike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted September 22, 2010 Report Share Posted September 22, 2010 Actually, I meant the date of the undercoin. I must be very slow today. I can't make out the last digit of the date of the undercoin, but shouldn't it be 1796? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobh Posted September 22, 2010 Author Report Share Posted September 22, 2010 I must be very slow today. I can't make out the last digit of the date of the undercoin, but shouldn't it be 1796? Yes, and I think it is. IgorS is right, the "3" is just missing the little curl at the bottom -- probably a filled die or something. Thinking more about it, it would probably be very difficult to get a result which was believable by tooling the undercoin details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted September 22, 2010 Report Share Posted September 22, 2010 Yes, and I think it is. IgorS is right, the "3" is just missing the little curl at the bottom -- probably a filled die or something. Thinking more about it, it would probably be very difficult to get a result which was believable by tooling the undercoin details. I see what you meant. But as IgorS pointed out this eagle comes only with Paul's overstrikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted September 22, 2010 Report Share Posted September 22, 2010 The digit "3" in the date looks wrong; although you CAN see traces of the "0" and of the earlier date, I think they were done later by tooling: What do you think? it is an obvious overstrike because of special eagle design cut for 1797 ovestriking program (not the 1788-1796 eagle) and can be noticable from far distance; also this one is in poor condition - there are so many nice ones' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigistenz Posted September 24, 2010 Report Share Posted September 24, 2010 The digit "3" in the date looks wrong; although you CAN see traces of the "0" and of the earlier date, I think they were done later by tooling: 5 kopecks, 1793-EM (Paul overstrike???) What do you think? Hi Bob, the coin looks authentic to me - but doctored. Keep away, they come cheaper in nicer condition. Sigi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.