1897 Rouble smooth edge

[Blackdrone]

Hello.

 

What is this?

 

I don't see letters on edge, perfectly smooth like coronation roubles.

 

I compared to the size that may not have been sanded down to, but it is the same as the average rouble.

 

 

[kopeikin]

If this is not a fake you have a very rare variety of this coin. R2 by Bitkin.

[Blackdrone]

here is the portrait:

 

[Blackdrone]

[BKB]

I do not like the edge from these photos. Maybe if you make bigger ones... But i see lines where there should be none. (IMXO)

[Blackdrone]

 

maybe it's better

[bobh]

If you compare this coin with other roubles, I would try to find one which is also 1897 (and I think these plain-edge varieties maybe appeared only from roubles struck in Brussels, but I may be mistaken). There were some very slight differences in diameter (and presumably weight) between the early years of Nicholas II. Unfortunately, I don't have any references at hand right now, but Kazakov was very thorough with this kind of detail information.

 

Other than that, I don't like the hairlines running around the edge.

[Blackdrone]

If you compare this coin with other roubles, I would try to find one which is also 1897 (and I think these plain-edge varieties maybe appeared only from roubles struck in Brussels, but I may be mistaken). There were some very slight differences in diameter (and presumably weight) between the early years of Nicholas II. Unfortunately, I don't have any references at hand right now, but Kazakov was very thorough with this kind of detail information.

 

Other than that, I don't like the hairlines running around the edge.

 

 

I found another 1897 rouble in same condition. diameter is same it's looks clearly on picture

 

the normal rouble weight is : 19,87g

this rouble weight is: 19,73g

 

here is the 1897 with 1897 compare:

 

[one-kuna]

from this picture looks like edge was altered but it is my IMXO

[BKB]

Either edge is filed off, or the coin is fake altogether. I would be very surprised if I turned out to be wrong, because I am pretty certain here... Sorry.

[STEVE MOULDING]

Either edge is filed off, or the coin is fake altogether. I would be very surprised if I turned out to be wrong, because I am pretty certain here... Sorry.

 

Strange...this is the second smooth edge Nicholas Rouble I've seen in the past week. Last Friday I was shown an 1895 by private communication.

[Blackdrone]

Strange...this is the second smooth edge Nicholas Rouble I've seen in the past week. Last Friday I was shown an 1895 by private communication.

 

i bought it on this week, it was in very big lot. It's old man heritage, he collected it 20-30 years ago. if it's fake, not new. (the lot was 300++ coins and 0 fake so far)

[kopeikin]

i bought it on this week, it was in very big lot. It's old man heritage, he collected it 20-30 years ago. if it's fake, not new. (the lot was 300++ coins and 0 fake so far)

 

the weight difference compared to proper weight is too large - 0.27 gram. how can this coin be authentic?

[alexbq2]

What would be the accepted remedium deviation for the Nicholas II bank coins?

 

I imagine that it should be fairly low in the second half of the 19th century.

[kopeikin]

What would be the accepted remedium deviation for the Nicholas II bank coins?

 

I imagine that it should be fairly low in the second half of the 19th century.

 

per Uzdenikov deviation for ruble is 0.18 g in second half of 19 century.

[bobh]

the normal rouble weight is : 19,87g

this rouble weight is: 19,73g

The normal rouble weight for 1897 is 20.0g as given by all reference books I have seen. Where did you see 19.87g? The diameter should be 33.65 mm (according to Kazakov). Severin mentions some very rare oversize roubles of approx. 35~36mm diameter, but nothing smaller than 33.65 appears in any of my reference works. In my previous post, I had confused the Severin account with that of Kazakov.

 

Kazakov doesn't really mention where the genuine plain-edge roubles were struck. Indeed, it is impossible to tell because the obverse and reverse dies were presumably the same for all mints. However, for some reason he includes these with the tables for the roubles struck in Brussels (and in Paris in 1896), not St. Petersburg. For 50 kopeck pieces struck in 1899, different obverse dies were used in St.Petersburg than in Paris, so it should be possible to tell where an 1899 poltina with a plain edge was struck without depending on the edge marks. I have studied the 50 kopeck series more thoroughly than the roubles, so I don't know of any way to tell them (the different rouble strikes) apart except in just a few special cases. Unless someone finds some way of attributing the place of mint to the obverse or reverse dies, the exact place of mintage for plain-edge roubles will remain unknown.

 

Given that Kazakov seems to be following a plan by grouping them like this, I have a theory that these plain-edge strikes were probably found out early on in St. Petersburg and melted down, if any were ever struck there to begin with. In a far-away city like Brussels or Paris, with mint employees perhaps unfamiliar with Russian mint procedures, the plain-edged roubles and poltinas -- as well as the coins with 180° die orientation -- might have more easily slipped through unnoticed.

[bobh]

here is the portrait:

I think it is fake. The end of the bust at the neck on the right on the obverse portrait extends a bit too far to the right, and the shape of the ear is not right.

[Blackdrone]

i included better picture:

 

[bobh]

i included better picture:

What about the strange raised mark or cud close to 11 o'clock on the obverse?

What about the shape of some letters ("Б.М." at beginning of the legend on the left, for example)?

 

Here are some other coins for comparison, presumably genuine ones. It is really hard to tell because all of these coins are in such bad shape:

http://www.m-dv.ru/catalog/id,6552/prohod.html

Unfortunately, none of them show the edge.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

The cud seems an obvious discrepancy but I really don't see differences in the lettering. Not that I am disagreeing that this is a fake; I just don't understand this part of your rationale and am hoping you can clarify it.

[bobh]

The cud seems an obvious discrepancy but I really don't see differences in the lettering. Not that I am disagreeing that this is a fake; I just don't understand this part of your rationale and am hoping you can clarify it.

Here's an enlargement I made of the first two letters of the legend. Feel free to draw your own conclusions:

 

 

As I said, it is hard to tell anything because the picture provided is so small. I thought the vertical bar of the "Б" was too thick and somewhat misshapen. Now that I have taken a second look, it is possible that this impression is due to the angle of lighting.

 

If the cud is indeed raised (as it appears to be from the way the lighting hits the hair from above), and is the result of a genuine die which has seen a lot of wear and some damage (i.e., the cud) then it is also likely that the lettering would show anomalies such as this.

 

After looking at the images on the "Монетный Двор" site, I was wondering how much of a regular edge one would have to file down in order to get a smooth edge at all? There is very little rim border on the obverse of these roubles, and I think it probably isn't possible to go that far into the edge without hitting the denticles on the obverse. I would estimate (without having done any measurements myself) that the regular edge lettering would have had to have a depth of something like between 0.2 and 0.5mm. Some of the letters would be a bit deeper, others maybe more shallow. One would have to grind away all of the metal up to the deepest of the letters to eliminate every trace, and that rim border can't be more than 0.5~0.8mm wide ... maybe someone could do some quick measurements for us?

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Alas my one remaining ruble coin is a nearly-worn-flat Nicholas II piece made in Brussels. I don't know the date (it's _that_ worn) but of course if I had my book here I could tell you within three years. Useless for these measurements.

 

I'd love to caliper both this coin and a known genuine coin, a significant difference would indicate that indeed the smooth edge coin is altered.

[gxseries]

It's not that hard to grind an edge down to smoothen an edge. I have a couple of coins that the obverse or reverse surface were grinded down. I'm suspecting that it is the case here but I can't tell at the moment.

 

Bob, this is my question to you, suppose if the plain edge rubles were made in St. Petersburg Mint, why is there a need to melt them down if they could just send them through the edging machine again? I'm suspecting the origins to be either Paris or more likely Brussels

[bobh]

It's not that hard to grind an edge down to smoothen an edge. I have a couple of coins that the obverse or reverse surface were grinded down. I'm suspecting that it is the case here but I can't tell at the moment.

 

Bob, this is my question to you, suppose if the plain edge rubles were made in St. Petersburg Mint, why is there a need to melt them down if they could just send them through the edging machine again? I'm suspecting the origins to be either Paris or more likely Brussels

I don't remember where I got this from, but I remember someone saying that the edge is always done first before the coin is struck. It might not have been possible to do a second edging process without some kind of damage to the obverse or reverse sides.

 

As to grinding down the edge, it would be important to ensure that the resulting coin was just as round as it was before removing the edge. Since the depth of the letters probably is not 100% consistent, one would have to remove enough metal to get down to the level of the deepest letters.

 

Interesting is that the "Монетный Двор" site states that the plain-edge roubles were made in St. Petersburg, not Brussels and not Paris (re: Kazakov). I wonder where they get that information?

[Lundgaar]

This is an example of 1897 rouble with smooth edge.