1796 AM (10 kopecks) 5 kopecks - what do you think

[extant4cell]

 

[sigistenz]

There is also something on the cipher side around the "96".

Hm, I don't know.

Sigi

[extant4cell]

Cipher from 10 kopecks can be seen on both sides. The eagle side has it almost in full, the other side (around 9), possible die clash image. All signs are not very prominent. The edge, is as from ordinary AM, which is practically never seen in Paul's overstrikes, as usually there is a hint of "rope" edge under the "net", but it is not totally impossible, as Uzdenikov in his article mentions both "net" edges for these overstrikes, with signs of rope and without. I can not fully formulate my opinion on this one, and I am still uncertain if this is a fake or a lucky find. I bought it from a seller in Orly ("Eagles") village in SPB region, Russia. Paid under $30 including postage. Sold to me as an ordinary AM, as seller didn't pay attention to the signs of overstrike. Coin is 44 mm in diameter.

[squirrel]

I think what you are seeing are tool marks or scratches from cleaning.

 

I just dont see a cipher 10K overstrike here, based on the pics.

[STEVE MOULDING]

ex..you may be right. Without looking at your solution, I printed out and overlaid the reverse (eagles) from your coin and an obverse (cipher) from an actual 10K and overlaid them. (I did this because I think I see a Cipher arc + a raised outer circle).

 

I actually found 3 possible rotations where the possible two features (cipher arc +small circle) on your coin lined up almost exactly with those in the 10K image.

However, in one of these 3 possible alignments, the cipher-side crown also appears to match what I see on your coin. This alignment is indeed the one you show, so I think we independently arrived at the same rotation.

 

Now I know the rotation angle I'll check the other side to see if anything lines up there.

 

There may be hope

[BKB]

No trace of re-edging + does not look like it was struck twice. Traces you highlighted look like some scratches + not a square mm of original field surface remains (My first impression was -- a cast fake). I am 99.9% it is not Paul's overstrike. Good thing you did not spend any serious $ on it.

 

General advice -- need to be very careful with Paul overstrikes nowadays, as there are a lot of fakes, that are very hard tell. I stopped looking for them altogether...

[IgorS]

BTW, the cypher 10 kopeks from the first post considered by many to be a fake.

[BKB]

But a very nice fake

[extant4cell]

The chance that it is Paul's overstrike is remote as it lacks all other attributes, but somewhat existent, as in unlikely chain of events it is possible. Unfortunately, the signs not very clear and hard to see, and somewhat look like scratches, but examining with high magnification tell me that it is possible that these "cipher scratches" appeared before the pressing the blank with the 5 k dies. This is one reason I keep interest in researching it further, plus it is an interesting topic to research as it happens.

 

From what I understand now, majority of the AM Paul's overstrikes were made with already made (in advance) dies, that lacked dates. That was fixed with date-instruments for "96" that was more pointy and not as round as the original "96". There is a very remote chance of finding an overstrike which was made with old die sets that were used in the production of the original new 5 kopecks, it means - die sets with round "96" just like on this coin. Such coin would be a very rare find. Again, unfortunately, the shape of the "96" is used now, by many, to tell the fake (tooled) overstrike from real ones. That is understandable, because nobody has an image of real confirmed AM 1796 overstrike with round "96" and they exist only in theory. I am not saying this is the one. And agree with you guys that lacking other attributes is not a good sign, that is hard to explain. Another thing that is hard to explain, is the presence of another (smaller) cipher sign on the year side of this coin and the only explaination that I may think of is die clash image. That is IF it is an overstrike and not a fake. I think trying to explain it may actually help to understand if this is a fake or not...

[sigistenz]

Eugene, I appreciate very much your in-depth investigation. It creates other peoples' considerations.

Your coin has a clipped planchet. It is very distinct.

From what I can see, it looks like an ordinary clipped planchet, like some of my coins.

BUT... if a coin gets overstruck (into the 10 kop.) and then re-overstruck again (into the 5 kop.), what would happen to the clipping? Wouldn't it be evened out? Checking my 15 or so overstrikes and re-overstrikes, I do not find a single planchet clip. That is, of course, not a proof. I just want to contribute an idea of mine about the problem. Maybe you should inspect the clipping closely. Does it look normal?

Sigi

 

-

[extant4cell]

Hi Sigi, I'll check it later today. What would be the significance of flattened surface of clippings?

[extant4cell]

Here are the additonal pictures:

 

[sigistenz]

Hi Sigi, I'll check it later today. What would be the significance of flattened surface of clippings?

It was just an idea. I thought a clipped planchet would look less clipped after two more strikes.

The pictures of the clippings do not give away anything (to me).

I wanted to contribute to the solution of the problem.

Sigi

 

-

 

 

 

[extant4cell]

Well, I'll put this coin aside for now, as I don't know what to do with it. I'll keep it in the collection as one of the wanna-be Paul's overstrike coins...