sigistenz Posted April 4, 2014 Report Share Posted April 4, 2014 In 1802 a new 5 kopek design was adopted. The KM mint changed its dies during the year which led to 2 KM types. Which one is worth more? WOLMAR rates the 1st type higher, KONROS rates the 2nd type higher. Who is right? МОНЕТНЫЙ ДВОР http://www.m-dv.ru/monety-rossii-1700-1917/kid,16/mid,4/nid,34/types.html compiles auction results. Over the last years the 1st type appeared 38 times averaging $ 1.139 the 2nd type appeared 13 times averaging $ 672 which means that the rare coin is worth less than the abundant coin. Sigi :confus: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE MOULDING Posted April 4, 2014 Report Share Posted April 4, 2014 Hi Sigi...the second type is of course rarer, despite what Wolmar might think. The average prices....trickier. To do it right you'd need to factor in condition and sale-date across the data (the m-dv numbers go back quite a few years). You also need to be robust against a single high or low price skewing the answers..,using a median (not average) price can help, and even after all that, averages are still uncertain just because there are so few data points. Simple averages are not always what they seem. Well....they are...you just need to be careful with interpretation. I guess what you'd like to compare is each type - today and in the same condition. The answer may turn out to be exactly what you've already concluded but I'd be statistically happier if it were a bit more rigorous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKB Posted April 4, 2014 Report Share Posted April 4, 2014 2nd may be more rare, but I like the first design a lot more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IgorS Posted April 5, 2014 Report Share Posted April 5, 2014 I agree with Steve and BKB - second type is rarer and I like the first type more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigistenz Posted April 5, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2014 Hi Sigi...the second type is of course rarer, despite what Wolmar might think. The average prices....trickier. To do it right you'd need to factor in condition and sale-date across the data (the m-dv numbers go back quite a few years). You also need to be robust against a single high or low price skewing the answers..,using a median (not average) price can help, and even after all that, averages are still uncertain just because there are so few data points. Simple averages are not always what they seem. Well....they are...you just need to be careful with interpretation. I guess what you'd like to compare is each type - today and in the same condition. The answer may turn out to be exactly what you've already concluded but I'd be statistically happier if it were a bit more rigorous Steve, I did not do a scientific research. Of course you are right with all you say But the mix of grades applies to both variants. I did not take into account Gorny's crazy €24,000 for one of the 1st type coins (this would have been still more in favor of the 1st type) but counted only the "normal" looking results. 12 times the abundant 1st type went over $1,000 or over $2,000 and once even over $3,000. The rare 2nd type only once went slightly over $1,000. http://www.m-dv.ru/m...d,34/types.html A funny thing happened. When I prepared my post my wife asked what I was doing. She doesn't know a thing about coins and could not tell a Chinese coin from a Russian coin. She glanced at the 2 pictures. Without being asked, she burst out, " I like the upper one (1st type) better." And so then said BKB and Igor! It seems that the abundant 1st variant is more popular and more in demand, people are willing to pay more than for the rare 2nd type. Sigi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted April 8, 2014 Report Share Posted April 8, 2014 Very nice 5 kop ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigistenz Posted April 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2014 Good to see you back here I missed you. There were two types of the 1802KM 5kopeks. Same metal, same size, same date. The rarer variant of the two is cheaper, the abundant variant is dearer. That was my point - it looks absurd. What do you think about it? Sigi - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted April 9, 2014 Report Share Posted April 9, 2014 Good to see you back here I missed you. There were two types of the 1802KM 5kopeks. Same metal, same size, same date. The rarer variant of the two is cheaper, the abundant variant is dearer. That was my point - it looks absurd. What do you think about it? Sigi - IMHO both coins are scarce and expensive, but the first one is a one year type which in my opinion makes it more desirable. Plus it is a very nice design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extant4cell Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 I think it is a good point. The first coin more appealing and it is one year design. It "appears" to be rare "an-mass the years". Let's say, I (as I am) collect coin types in general, apart from more specific interests. I can get a coin with a second look in other years (and may be cheaper!), but the first look comes only in the first year, so I have no choice but bid against other collectors with the same approach... But as far as rarity goes, you are right, the second coin is rarer, but not as desirable for general collectors... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.