extant4cell Posted October 6, 2014 Report Share Posted October 6, 2014 There should be very small handful of coins with this edge... Shown here: http://coins.su/foru...howtopic=141110 Discussed here: http://coins.su/foru...howtopic=141179 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extant4cell Posted October 7, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 Has anyone got a similar example that you can show? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigistenz Posted October 7, 2014 Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 Sorry, I don't have it - but I have held the one below in hand. It was auctioned on 10/11 March 2009 at Künker. I tried to buy it but it went too high (€1700 plus gravy). Sigi . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extant4cell Posted October 7, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 Hi Sigi! The one from Künker looks a lot better (identified on CFN as MM mint - rare)... The one in the first post was sold (I believe) for some 60,000 odd roubles, which is about €1200 (identified on CFN as SPB - very rare [only 4 known so far])... Both coins have some signs of previous 5 kopecks over-stroke by Paul. What are your thoughts on that edges? From KM or TM? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigistenz Posted October 7, 2014 Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 What are your thoughts on that edges? From KM or TM? Good question, Eugene. I don't know. I do not understand enough Russian to enjoy Russian forums or to read books on the topic. Sigi . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extant4cell Posted October 7, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 Frankly, I can not tell them apart. May be need to read the article by Evdokimov to understand this better. To me, both are in the same group of rare coins with rope edge,.. Statistically, it's more probable the "under" coin is KM, with a tiny probability for TM... No way telling them apart I guess. But the first coin in the post has the metal structure close to TM.... All of it is "may be" and probable... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 I was under the impression that TM minted coins with net edge instead of the rope edge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extant4cell Posted October 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 In 1788 - no rope. In 1787 - rope is more common on TM 5 kopecks... ( http://www.m-dv.ru/catalog/id,4411/prohod.html ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigistenz Posted October 9, 2014 Report Share Posted October 9, 2014 Hello Eugene, who is CFN (link?) and I am still brooding on the difference in metal structure with TM and KM. How to tell from pictures? Thanks for having enlightened me many times! Sigi . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted October 9, 2014 Report Share Posted October 9, 2014 i think perhaps he has been playing with the mass spectrometer at work again...? (i suspect with "cell" in your screen name you are a scientist?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extant4cell Posted October 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 CFN is ЦФН, the Russian forum, where the coin was discussed briefly: http://coins.su/forum/index.php?showtopic=141179&page=2 I am no scientist, oh may be just a tiny bit... Cell, referred to many things, including coin cells... The TM metal surface was discussed here http://www.coinpeople.com/index.php/topic/35460-1788-2-or-5-kopecks-tm-overstrikes-do-you-know-any/?p=626209 and also on CFN somewhere in parallel (can not find outright)... The later issues of KM have a lot better quality of the metal, compare to TM issues, where the technology of melting the copper was somewhat prehistorical and that shows in coins... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted October 10, 2014 Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 thank you for re-linking me to the TM thread, Eugene. I must have missed it when it was active. Very educational for me. Especially the history of the mint there. I do have a lonely 1787 TM 5k, and its metal quality is less than wonderful, to be sure,and quite a dark patina, typical of impurities in the copper , such as commonly seen in Siberian coinage. Although I recall the Siberian mined copper included silver and gold in small amounts, which could not be well separated out at the time. Have you seen any analysis of TM copper discussed on the Russian language coin forums? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extant4cell Posted October 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 There was a little discussion ot Suzun history and KM metal here: http://coins.su/forum/index.php?showtopic=103942&p=1051956 ... From what I know the higher concentration of Gold and Silver run only in the first few years until the technique of separating metals was perfected. That was reported to Peterburg and it was ordered to add gold and silver back to the copper. Many believe that has never happened, or at least, not with all copper. Uzdenikov has a table with metal concentration, but I am not sure where he got that information. The TM coins discussed in this topic, (I found it now): http://coins.su/forum/index.php?showtopic=43312&hl= I don't believe anyone did any other, but visual analysis of the copper used in TM coins. Again, many believe, that it's not only old coins that were used to be melted, but anything copper (plates, broken samovary [teapots], etc), that included other metals to add to impurities, I'm sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKB Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 thank you for re-linking me to the TM thread, Eugene. I must have missed it when it was active. Very educational for me. Especially the history of the mint there. I do have a lonely 1787 TM 5k, and its metal quality is less than wonderful, to be sure,and quite a dark patina, typical of impurities in the copper , such as commonly seen in Siberian coinage. Although I recall the Siberian mined copper included silver and gold in small amounts, which could not be well separated out at the time. Have you seen any analysis of TM copper discussed on the Russian language coin forums? I believe they got refining Siberian copper ore under control by late 1766. Thus, whatever came after 66-67, did not have much of gold/silver in it. After that, they were just using the original argument for weight/denomination ratio, without much truth as to real metal composition... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extant4cell Posted October 12, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 That is what most people believe. Once Catherine II found out that the copper is now low on gold and silver, she ordered to add it back to get it to the level of the previous copper, to keep the original standard. Many believe that although this order has been recorded in the documents, Kolyvan Plant management decided not to follow on it religiously. Uzsdenikov however, printed this table: The research was done on 13 coins from the collection of Historical Museum that were tested with use of mass spectrometer (I guess) But again, these most probably were the coins sent each year to the capital as examples of Suzun mint produce. It wouldn't be hard to make some coins using copper with additional silver / gold. That affair could be taking place on a yearly basis. To be sure it would be better to test random coins found in Siberia, in however bad condition... That may uncover something interesting and settle this suspicion. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigistenz Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 CFN is ЦФН, the Russian forum, where the coin was discussed briefly: http://coins.su/forum/index.php?showtopic=141179&page=2 I am no scientist, oh may be just a tiny bit... Cell, referred to many things, including coin cells... The TM metal surface was discussed here http://www.coinpeople.com/index.php/topic/35460-1788-2-or-5-kopecks-tm-overstrikes-do-you-know-any/?p=626209 and also on CFN somewhere in parallel (can not find outright)... The later issues of KM have a lot better quality of the metal, compare to TM issues, where the technology of melting the copper was somewhat prehistorical and that shows in coins... Thank you very much. I understand now why the Kyrmis coins look porous like cast. And TM's low quality copper is probably to blame for the planchet crack of my 5kop1787TM. Planchet cracks are more often seen at TM coins than with the other mints of the time. Sigi . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extant4cell Posted October 12, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 Hi Sigi! This is the only reason I think that the coin in the first post has a good chance to be overstruck on TM 5 kopecks - it's surface displays lots of impurities... :art:The one you showed in post #3, is more likely made from KM... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted November 11, 2014 Report Share Posted November 11, 2014 I had a good look at it today as I had a bit more free time. Using Sigi's quality images as a reference (thanks Sigi) and making comparison, I agree that this coin is more likely to be overstruck over a TM over KM however it is not conclusive yet. If you take the first picture and rotate it 90 degrees anti clockwise, this is the original host coin of where the double head eagle was. In particular the open space in between the crown and fern, this is a clear sign of the curly banner design of "five kopek". Apologies in advance as I don't know how to describe this any better. When you compare KM and TM - KM's design is actually significantly smaller than TM with the exception of 1788/7 KM 5 kopek. Probability wise, this would reject the majority of KM 5 kopek however I would like to bring out more details when I get around to it. Still can't see KM or TM but given time, maybe something may pop out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extant4cell Posted November 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 11, 2014 Thank you for these observations! We'll wait for more... 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.