sigistenz Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 From my 18 Siberian 10 kopek coins only 2 have a flan defect. BUT they are almost identical, at the first 3 letters of "МОНЕТА". There are 4 years of difference and dies are not the same either (not only the date, see the position of "М" of "МОНЕТА"). In my opinion both coins are genuine. But how to explain their identical flan defect? As said, no other coin shows any planchet flaw. But the 2 who do, have it alike What do you think? Thank you, Sigi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porcupine Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 From my 18 Siberian 10 kopek coins only 2 have a flan defect. BUT they are almost identical, at the first 3 letters of "МОНЕТА". There are 4 years of difference and dies are not the same either (not only the date, see the position of "М" of "МОНЕТА"). In my opinion both coins are genuine. But how to explain their identical flan defect? As said, no other coin shows any planchet flaw. But the 2 who do have it alike What do you think? Thank you, Sigi I wouldn't call these flaws identical. Similar, but not identical. Nice coins, BTW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKB Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 If those were identical, you would be looking for 2 more coins for your collection now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobh Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 The 10k Siberian coins are among the largest of the entire Russian coinage. When the dies are impressed on the metal, the pressure on the outermost edge must be tremendous! It looks like part of the metal was folded back on the planchet, but obviously must have happened before the actual impression of the dies. To me, it appears to be a kind of lamination defect. But the location of these defects at the same place is surely just a coincidence because the planchet could have been turned a different way and produced a different outcome. Nice coins! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 may have something to do with the where the blanks were punched from the rolled sheet of copper.. perhaps both were very close to the edge, and incorperated some sort of shape defect, which was then flattened down during striking, and what we see now. just a guess. no way to know for sure, I suppose. If you are going to throw them out, Ill take em.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigistenz Posted February 10, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 Thank you all. Planchet defects are not too common with the Siberian 10 kopeks. Of my 18 pieces, there are only these two with a planchet defect. It struck me that both irregularities are so similar as regards emplacement and shape, though there are 4 years of interval. It is difficult to believe in a coincidence. Sigi - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicholasz219 Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Sigi, I think Bobh is on to the most likely of causes for the appearance of your two coins. If you look on the example from 1773, there is what appears to be the impression from a die crack from the 't' to the 'a' in Moneta. In addition, there is a weak strike of the first 'c' past the crown. Finally, toward the bottom of the coin, there appears to be another crease in the coin passing through the backwards R on the bottom, a similar if not as severe case of what happened by the 'm' in Moneta. Quite possibly the dies went through significant stress during the striking of these large coins and any small shift in the way the planchet sat before being struck could result in a damaged die over time. That's just my humble opinion. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oregoncoin Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 From my 18 Siberian 10 kopek coins only 2 have a flan defect. BUT they are almost identical, at the first 3 letters of "МОНЕТА". There are 4 years of difference and dies are not the same either (not only the date, see the position of "М" of "МОНЕТА"). In my opinion both coins are genuine. But how to explain their identical flan defect? As said, no other coin shows any planchet flaw. But the 2 who do, have it alike What do you think? Thank you, Sigi I have a wild theory (and another 10k - a 1770 - with an "identical" planchet flaw at 11-12:00)... I think that all coins with this type of flaw were minted using 1766 lettered-edge 10k's as blanks. I don't have time to explain my theory now, but Sigi, please take a real close look at those beautiful examples you got and let me know if you see what I'm talking about, particularly vestiges of edge lettering. I don't think these are rare - I think most 1769-72s were made this way (which is why lettered-edge 10ks are uncommon despite the large mintage figures, and those early dates are relative no-shows at auctions). I think it's possible, too, that these were made from off-center / multiple-struck 1766s - because one of mine (I think) has a right-facing 1766 sable to the right of the right-side 1770 sable (wha!?). I know it's a radical theory, but maybe it took a little while to figure out how to make these coins, and maybe they accumulated a whole bunch of mistakes, and rather than melt them down, roll out sheets of copper, punch new blanks, etc. - an expensive process, I imagine - they just stuck the messed-up ones into the presses, stamped it a few times till it "fit" - and then voila! That would explain these fatigue fractures on the planchets. OK, maybe I did have time to explain my theory. Of course, I could be - and probably am - wrong; I tend to see things under my Russian copper, but then again, maybe I'm not so far off... ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigistenz Posted February 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Sigi, I think Bobh is on to the most likely of causes for the appearance of your two coins. If you look on the example from 1773, there is what appears to be the impression from a die crack from the 't' to the 'a' in Moneta. In addition, there is a weak strike of the first 'c' past the crown. Finally, toward the bottom of the coin, there appears to be another crease in the coin passing through the backwards R on the bottom, a similar if not as severe case of what happened by the 'm' in Moneta. Quite possibly the dies went through significant stress during the striking of these large coins and any small shift in the way the planchet sat before being struck could result in a damaged die over time. That's just my humble opinion. Nick Ok, Nick, but I ask myself, why the irregularity is not only on the same side of the coin but also at the same spot and of approximately the same size and shape? My other 16 pieces have no planchet defect at all, but these two (4 years apart) look almost like twins. Sigi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigistenz Posted February 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 I have a wild theory (and another 10k - a 1770 - with an "identical" planchet flaw at 11-12:00)... I think that all coins with this type of flaw were minted using 1766 lettered-edge 10k's as blanks. I don't have time to explain my theory now, but Sigi, please take a real close look at those beautiful examples you got and let me know if you see what I'm talking about, particularly vestiges of edge lettering. I don't think these are rare - I think most 1769-72s were made this way (which is why lettered-edge 10ks are uncommon despite the large mintage figures, and those early dates are relative no-shows at auctions). I think it's possible, too, that these were made from off-center / multiple-struck 1766s - because one of mine (I think) has a right-facing 1766 sable to the right of the right-side 1770 sable (wha!?). I know it's a radical theory, but maybe it took a little while to figure out how to make these coins, and maybe they accumulated a whole bunch of mistakes, and rather than melt them down, roll out sheets of copper, punch new blanks, etc. - an expensive process, I imagine - they just stuck the messed-up ones into the presses, stamped it a few times till it "fit" - and then voila! That would explain these fatigue fractures on the planchets. OK, maybe I did have time to explain my theory. Of course, I could be - and probably am - wrong; I tend to see things under my Russian copper, but then again, maybe I'm not so far off... ;D Hi Trevor, good to hear from you after a while. That is an interesting theory - but why should they have overstruck 10 kopecks into 10 kopecks? I imagine some misstruck coin sent back to the mint to be re-struck correctly but on a wide scale ??? I just have examined my Siberian 10 kopeks - but no trace of any undercoin (or under-edge). Can you show pictures of what you mean? Best - Sigi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW Julian Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 My opinion is that this is a coincidence. An odd one to be sure, but a coincidence. The defects, although in the same location, are not identical. I looked at my database of 10 kopeck pieces and found several with planchet defects, though not in this exact spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigistenz Posted February 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 My opinion is that this is a coincidence. An odd one to be sure, but a coincidence. The defects, although in the same location, are not identical. I looked at my database of 10 kopeck pieces and found several with planchet defects, though not in this exact spot. Thank you, Bob, I appreciate your comment! 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.