lennysky Posted January 1, 2011 Report Share Posted January 1, 2011 Bought this one awhile ago and always wondered if the 4 in the date is over 3 or over 0. Any ideas is it too hard to tell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennysky Posted January 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 1, 2011 Here is a larger image of the date Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobh Posted January 1, 2011 Report Share Posted January 1, 2011 Here is a larger image of the date The Brekke/Bakken supplement of 1997 lists 1794/3-EM but no 1794/0, so I would be inclined to think it should be a 3 on the undercoin. It is marked as "rare" (-) in that book; it is unlisted in the original Brekke book of 1977. The interesting thing about 1793-EM 1 kopeck is that it is not known except as an overstrike of Paul I, and of that there exists only one known specimen which is in the Hermitage Museum. There were no business strikes made in 1793 at Ekaterinburg, but apparently those dies had been prepared and the date repunched to 1794 later on. I would hold on to it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennysky Posted January 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 1, 2011 Thank you for the information. I have 1789, 1794/3 and 1795 in EM. Need a few more to closeout the series, but the 1763 is pretty much impossible to obtain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE MOULDING Posted January 1, 2011 Report Share Posted January 1, 2011 The Brekke/Bakken supplement of 1997 lists 1794/3-EM but no 1794/0, so I would be inclined to think it should be a 3 on the undercoin. It is marked as "rare" (-) in that book; it is unlisted in the original Brekke book of 1977. The interesting thing about 1793-EM 1 kopeck is that it is not known except as an overstrike of Paul I, and of that there exists only one known specimen which is in the Hermitage Museum. There were no business strikes made in 1793 at Ekaterinburg, but apparently those dies had been prepared and the date repunched to 1794 later on. I would hold on to it! Well, the 1794 is a busy date in general. These days the 4/3 is much more common than the clean date; I have images of lots of them. I don't think a Rare grade would hold up any more. While there are clean dates, of course, there are others which look like a sloppy 4/1, and a couple which may be 4/0, at least looking at the upper left of the 4. Hard to be sure though. Steve Image: Possible 4/0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted January 1, 2011 Report Share Posted January 1, 2011 I can carefully presume that it is 94/0 from the picture given Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobh Posted January 1, 2011 Report Share Posted January 1, 2011 I think I see what might be the tip of the top bar in "3" peeking out from under the diagonal bar of "4" at its left side, and the round part at the bottom seems a bit too small to me to be the remnants of a "0". I still vote for 1794/3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennysky Posted January 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 Any idea of the value on these currently? Thank you ahead oftime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 post #2 picture has no sign of "3" in my opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennysky Posted January 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 This is the best I can do with pictures. I think it's a 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 sorry, I can't see any indication of "3" from this and earlier picture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennysky Posted January 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 That does not mean its not there. I my opinion, based on proximity of years minted, the coin is much more likely to be 4/3 than 4/0. Otherwise, I would have leaned towards the 4/0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 once again, based on your couple pictures, there is no sign of "3" but clearly of ZERO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennysky Posted January 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 Oh well. Does it really matter if its a 3 or a 0 price wise? Probably not. The coin is in VF and is probably worth about $100. Any contradictions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 I would't pay a hundred for this coin, may be half Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennysky Posted January 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 It is my understanding that 1 kopek pieces from that era are a bit harder to obtain these days. Don't think there are any on ebay right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennysky Posted January 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 Also, Brekke suplement does not provide a listing for a 4/0 overdate for 1 Kopek coin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 Still need better photos Lennysky. Sorry I reckon you can trade that coin for a rather decent camera. Maybe a little photography technique that you can try - don't try to photograph the coin too close up. What I recommand is to have good lights and then adjust the white balance. It shouldn't make the photograph too yellowish. Next try to photograph the coin about 15cm away but not too close. Use the macro setting and see if it helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennysky Posted January 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 BKB was telling me the same. I tried a few things under the lighting conditions I have, but it did not work. What I must do is create good lighting and then play with distances/ballance. BTW, if you think I can trade the coin for a really good camera, I will take it as a compliment on my coin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 Lenny, even with a 3MP compact camera, you should be able to take reasonably clear photos. Most of my recent photos are taken with a Ricoh 5mp camera. I think it is a Caplio R2 but even so, most of the photos I have taken were reduced down to 3MP. I think my photos are not too bad unless you think that's not the case. Mind if I ask what camera you have there? Might be able to give a better tip. It's a real shame because I know you have really nice coins but I can't see clearly what you got there. I don't follow this series carefully but I will be surprised if it goes for less than 100USD to the right people. And with 100USD for 10MP camera (I think it has gone to that cheap), I can assure you that you can get excellent photos with the right technique. That would mean more amazing photos to come from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennysky Posted January 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 I have a Lumix DMC-ZS1 with full Macro capability and resolution up to 10 megapixel and optical to 12X. I believe its the light that makes it not work so well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.