1802 5 kopecks KM with ornament

[extant4cell]

I'd use Sigi's coins for ease of access:

 

 

Why such a big difference between these two coins? Never mind the ornament, but all the elements on both side are VERY different, made with different instruments for creating dies... and only 5 kopecks were made with ornament along the edge, other nominals not. Also, only among these coins (top) you can find high grade coins in huge numbers, including UNC and MS, for all others that grade is as rare as snow in melted metal... Very un-Suzun like coins...

[extant4cell]

They are also identical to their novodels:

 

[sigistenz]

Thank you Eugene, I feel honored. I wonder why they changed from the 1st (in my opinion nicer) type. And why so many of the 1st type survive in high grades. Were they held back by the mint because of the 2nd type?

BTW at the time being I came to like nice circulated coins

For me they are good enough as I consider slight wear an indicator of authenticy.

Sigi

 

.

 

 

 

 

[extant4cell]

Hi Sigi, I also like to see at least some signs of circulation on my coins. It seams to me that among MS and UNC coins of this type there may be a lot of novodels that were "made" to look slightly used, as it is practically impossible to tell them apart. What strikes me, that ALL coins with ornament novodels and original have little difference in diameter, they are all at 42 mm, where as the original vary between 43.5 and 45 mm. That means, if we assume they made using the same presses, that a) copper lines used for making blanks was considerably "fatter"; they took special care for cutting the blanks of the same size; c) they took special care to press the coins using identical pressing power. Where as for the new, "common" type they allover-sudden became a lot more careless with press, and started make copper lines "slimmer"... Mind you that "common" type is rarer in 1802, and on a whole there are a lot more coins with ornament known in 1802, than "common" type in 1803. That's fishy if you ask me... On the other hand, the ornament type pyataks found in the ground and in other hideouts, in the towns that are along the river in the area close to Barnaul, so it tells us that they were distributed to pay for work and supplies for Kolyvan-Voznesensk metal production plant, the main user of KM coins. At the same time, if we consider that all the element of ornament coins are so different (numbers, letters [their size], eagle and it's decorative elements, coin size etc...), it seams probable that these coins (with ornament) were not made by Suzun, but let's say by Ekaterinburg, to help the KM plant (not Suzun mint) to pay the workers and suppliers in a usual KM coinage. By the way, EM pyataki are found with diameter of 42 mm. That would allow time for Suzun to create their own dies ans start coin production. That would also explain why the dies survived for so long, and that the mint staff were able to produce novodels with these dies many years later, and who produced these novodels? That's right - Ekaterinburg Mint! So, if you follow my thought, the ornament KM pyataks aren't KM paytaks at all, but EM in disguise... It's impossible to prove that, unless you have access to EM archives, and look for this information specifically, i guess. Do you like my fantastic (fantasy) theory?

[extant4cell]

Sigi, if you get a chance, can you do me a favor? Can you please measure the inside and outside diameter of the rings of these 3 coins and report your findings here?

 

 

I know that the first EM and the last KM diameter of circles is different, but I wonder is the first and the second coins' circles are similar in diameter. That would be some what a prove... Plus the style of a design of elements in a 1st and a 2nd coin are a lot more similar than the 2nd and the 3rd!!! Start with number "1", "line divider" between a nominal and a year, counter dots "button inside ONE circle" style, crosses on orbs, use of small dots after "5" and the year, eagle's short beaks, styling of St. Andrew's cross and a chain, positioning of the lower counter dots on both sides, that continues on EM coins for years to come... The more I talk about it, the more I am sure that my theory is correct. It looks that it might be a little discovery!

[extant4cell]

I probably need to take that back. As I kept analyzing it further, I started doubting it very much that these 5 kopecks could be designed and made on EM mint. It is highly likely that coins were after all made on KM mint in 1802, however, it is highly unlikely that the dies were designed and made on KM mint. Most probably they came from SPB mint, while the on KM they were still preparing dies with their own design that they started using later in the year, and kept using till the end.

[sigistenz]

Hi Eugene, a very interesting topic you brought up! I appreciate your investigating mind!

With EM we see quite some mules (mixed up dies, early die on one side, later die on the other side). The EM 1802 eagle side comes muled in 1803, 1804 and 1805. But there are no KM mules known with the 1802KM early type eagle. It is thus quite thinkable that the KM early type and later type were minted at different places with no possibility to mix up the dies.

I'll watch my collection soon and will submit the data you suggested.

Best, Sigi

[extant4cell]

I have noticed that as well, Sigi. This is another good point in favor of the non-KM minting of ornamented pyataks to add to all of the above brain storming.

The three main points that are for KM minting are:

1) Coins found around towns close to Barnaul, the industrial capital of Siberia
at that time, where governing body of Suzun mint resided. That kind of proves
that they were made and used in 1802.

However, it only points at the coins distribution area.

2) Comparing edges: the ornamented KM's edge looks more similar to common KM
coins edges in "steps" (number of lines per length) than to EM coins.

However, (judging by your pictures) the angle of lines is more (but only) similar to EM,
where as the distance between lines seams greater on common design 1802 KM 5 kopecks.

3) It is highly improbable that coins with KM lettering would be minted at a different mint.

However, is it totally impossible?

Questions unanswered:

I wonder if the edging was done with the instrument that was previously used for E-II roubles (SPB), or for 1796 series 10 kopecks.

I have never seen an eagle and a crown made so artistically for copper coins. I must say that the eagle and the crown apart from being of an unusual shapes for copper, made very skillfully, and I would probably even hypothesize that they could be made by a master who used to work on silver dies.

Sigi, can you please compare these three coins' edges, plus 1796 KM 5 kopecks as well, if possible? One thing to compare pictures, the other thing - the actual coins. Also, please, measure diameter of all 4 coins, plus the diameter of the 1802 coins' rings.

With the diameter of the circles, I guess, if the diameter or EM 1802 and ornamented KM will be different, it can mean that the ornamented KM is not a product of EM mint. By the way, the lower counter dots on ornamented KM visually are a lot closer to each other than on EM coins, which also points to non-EM production.

What is interesting: both EM and KM started with a similar image design coins, although very different in instrument that was used to create them.

It is possible that the dies were made in SPB mint, trial coins approved and sent with drawings to both EM and KM as examples, with KM possibly getting the dies as well, that they added lettering "KM" to (in case KM mint actually minted these coins). The absence of mules, unusual diameter, and somewhat different edging point at that for some reason SPB couldn't send the coin examples and instrument to KM mint quickly enough and decided to produce a reasonably large trial issue with "KM" lettering at Anninsk, Sestroretsk or at SPB (not sure if Anninsk or Sestroretsk still had equipment for that and functional), so by the time Suzun got that instrument to use, Barnaul would also get some coinage to pay for works related to their industrial business. It may have happened so that by the time the instrument got to Suzun, they already made they own dies and got a confirmation that they are OK to use them. Or, while they waited for such confirmation, they could have used the dies they received, but unlikely (again, coins not thing enough for common KM coins of 1802 onwards, and of a constant diameter). This is for archives' researches to find out in Siberian industrial archives.

Anything is possible. Even the use of left over blanks from interrupted 1796 10 kopecks production, although they all probably were used up the same year for 5 kopecks... Actually, to tell the truth, the previous issue 1796 5 kopecks KM were in fact all 42 mm in diameter, so it fits the assumption that they used up the previous issues' KM blanks for the production of coins with ornament. In that case, we can explain why we have no mule, even though coins were made on KM mint - it's simply because the dies' diameters were different coins would look too irregular (the edge on one side would probably curve inside) in case of mixing dies with different diameters. Well, it seams to me now, that it is highly possible that coins were made at KM mint.

In that case this still stands: "It is highly likely that coins were after all made at KM mint in 1802, however, it is highly unlikely that the dies (for ornamented coins) were designed and made at KM mint."

Interestingly enough, that EM mint started somewhat copying the KM original common design as the time went on. The lower counter dots move to the position as on KM, they also change the design to "2 rings and a button in the middle" and the separator between nominal and the date as time goes by copied from KM coins.

[sigistenz]

Eugene, I measured on my coins:

5kop1796KM Ø 42mm

5kop1802EM Ø 42mm inner circle 29mm

5kop1803EM 1st type Ø 43mm inner circle 29mm (added Aug.1)

5kop1803EM 2nd typeØ 42mm inner circle 29mm (added Aug.1)

5kop1802KM 1st type Ø 42mm inner circle 29mm

5kop1802KM 2nd typeØ 43mm inner circle 35,5mm

I am not quite sure what else you want me to compare, would be glad to, very interesting stuff!

Best, Sigi

.

[extant4cell]

Excellent work Sigi! Thank you very much! I find that it is amazing that EM and KM 1st type inner circles are so alike!

 

It's pretty clear they are not made by the same engraver (instruments used are different). But it's easy to see how one could be thinking that both coins were made and even minted at the same place. Honest mistake. Although, the 1796 KMs were of the same diameter with the 1st type, that cancels that argument out. They could mint the first type at KM mint, keeping the coin diameter constant at that size, if they did that before.

 

If it is not too much bother, can you please measure the inner circle of EM 2nd types as well? This is the last piece of puzzle I am not sure about. Was the first EM design a product of EM mint, or it came from SPB... I incline that it was a product of EM. But in that case, they had detailed instructions on how the coin should look like, or a sample. And they probably continued making their coins of the 2nd type with the same diameter of the inner circle, as in their mind it would be a standard size.

 

There are a lot of elements in the 2nd type coins that were used in 1st type. Was the instrument copied or was it original, hard to find out... But it is something.

 

Sigi, as a final touch, can you please compare the edges of these 3 coins 1802, EM 1st type, KM 1st and 2nd type under magnifying glass? If possible, may be take a large size picture or a scan when they are next to each other.

 

I also noticed that the elements of EM ornament near the edge has changed the shape a little, it used to have sharp corners in a 1st EM type, and softer, rounder corners in a 2nd type, which is a little strange. They also became smaller, and changed the step (more elements on the coin than before).

 

Many thanks!!!

[sigistenz]

Hi Eugene, I edited my previous mail adding the data you require. See there.

Below see two scans of the edges, taken at two different angles, they are:-

 

1 - 5kop1796KM

2 - 5kop1802EM

3 - 5kop1803EM 1st type

4 - 5kop1803EM 2nd type

5 - 5kop1802KM 1st type

6 - 5kop1802KM 2nd type

 

The coins are in more or less circulated condition - you will be aware that the crests of the edge reeding wear off, get more or less flatter, looking broader then.

Always glad to assist, as I am very eager to learn the outcome of your investigation

Best, Sigi

 

http://imageshack.com/a/img910/1453/XWzzqA.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img537/2753/Dud1jO.jpg

 

.

 

[extant4cell]

Thank you for doing this Sigi! I'll try to organize this information and ideas into some little report. I don't think it will be fully conclusive. But let me think and write here, sharing it with you and others, who reads this thread.

 

The pictures of the edges you provided are great! I love you Sigi, taking images of both sides of the coins was an excellent idea, splendid job. Now, it can be pretty clearly seeing that 2-nd KM type (discounting the difference in Ø, curvature and wear, as you rightfully pointed out) was made at least partly with the 1st type's edging instrument, and possibly even with the old instrument from the previous E-II issue (compare 5, 6 and 1, see the overlay of two different instruments on 6, that match 5 and 1?) or a new instrument with similar angle and step. That points into the direction that 1st type coins have in fact been minted at KM mint. OK, we don't have a sensation here and can not cry "eurika!", KM coins were not minted outside KM mint, as I rashly hypothesized, and they were not novodel (another my early crazy idea), well, this is still a very good result, as now we know that with a higher degree of probability - 1st type was minted at KM mint.

 

Now, did KM mint have the instruments for the 1-st type dies and why didn't they use it in the future? Why the 2nd type was favored over 1st type?

 

Possible explanation is that they received the master punches or dies for the 1st type from SPB mint when they already started creating their own (2nd) type and elementary instruments for that type, and even possible that they already tried them out on a trial issue. Another point in favor of using 2nd type may be that it was in line with the previously used eagle, that was more regular and traditional for KM mint. Once the 2nd type instrument was prepared they should have produced a trial issue, sending samples to His Majesty's Cabinet (or equivalent) for approbation, to get an approval to use it. While they waited, they could not just stop, sit and wait, doing nothing, they had to keep producing the coins. They couldn't produce the old issue coins any longer, so they replicated working copies of 1st type dies that they most probably received from SPB mint, and used them for 1-st type coins production. That also explains a reasonably small issue of the 2nd type coins in 1802. Interesting to note that Alexander I ascended the throne on 23 March 1801, early enough in the year, and that KM mint produced more 5 kopecks than in the next 1803, and almost as many as in 1804.

 

So, why do I believe that the 1st type dies were not designed at KM mint? a) the 1st types elements are so different from anything ever produced on KM before, that it is difficult to believe that it was designed and cut on KM mint. They were very good at replicating and copying, but to create all new design seams to be of a low probability. The design and details of the eagle and a crown were very beautiful and sharp that required the skill of an experienced engraver; These dies discontinued after less than a year of use; c) Novodels were made with exactly same image, that points at a use of the same instrument, copy or original. Novodels are extremely difficult to distinguish, unless the edge can be examined as well, meaning that a copy of these dies was kept at SPB mint, most probably after it was produced there and sent out to KM mint; d) KM mint never used instrument that produced elements of 1-st type dies on any of their other coins, meaning that they most probably did not possess elementary instrument used in a dies production or didn't bother to make it in the future, as it became obsolete. e) the majority of 1802 KM pyataks are of this type, and with a high production volume it means that coins went into production very quickly. If the dies used to produce the bulk of coins were designed at KM, they would have to be approved by His Majesty's Cabinet first and that required time, that the production volume shows was not really lost. That is possible only if production started with already approved dies.

 

So the picture with KM coins is more or less clear. 2-nd type - original KM product and design. 1st type - temporary design for KM mint received from SPB mint. Why SPB, not EM, as again, was my other wrong earlier idea, when I was brainstorming this whole issue?

 

One thing I was trying to understand was, were EM 1802 1-st type dies designed outside EM mint and passed to them for replication as it was the case with the 1-st type of KM mint coins, or were they the original EM design? Lets argue this. The EM and KM designs are very similar. The lower counting dots that are brought closer together, the exactly the same inner circle's diameter of 29 mm on EM and KM 1-st types, all point into direction that these coins were designed at the same time. The use of similar elements in design: dots (one outer ring and a button), separator line with top corners cut, etc. But all of these elements, however similar in design, are different in shape and form. If both EM and KM 1-st types were made by the same designer the things that we would expect to see would be at least partial use of identical instrument for elements. We don't see that in any shape or form. Furthermore, the counter dots position, though similar, is way out, and if you lay pictures of EM and KM first type on top of each other you can see how much different these coins are. So, with a certain degree of confidence we may say that the EM and KM 1-st types are the products of different masters engravers, and most probably could not have been both made by SPB mint, or (as I thought to start with) by EM mint.

 

The similarity in design may have come from EM mint copying the design from an image (most probably a picture), and from reading technical documentation that described things like the diameter of the inner rings, location of the dots, weight, etc.

 

Whereas KM 1-st type's elements do not continue into the next type at all, hinting that they are not of KM origin and KM mint never had that instrument, EM 1-st type's elements, in however small numbers, but are present in the next generation, hinting at EM mint keeping elementary instruments for the 1-st type's dies and using some of them to create the next type. Another point, SPB never had EM 1-st type dies and could not produce the Novodel coins that would be very similar. Novodels are too easily distinguishable from original coins. So, it is safe to assume that with EM 1-st type dies were not send to them from SPB, they were produced at EM mint.

 

If with KM 2-nd type we can reasonably easily understand why we have a 2-nd type and why it is so different? With 2-nd EM type things aren't that easily explained. The EM 1-st type eagle side still lives on in coins to 1805. The averse dies are easily mixed with new design of the nominal side. But why the changes? The most easy explanation would be - standardization. KM coins design was approved in SPB, and EM mint had to copy it to a degree. Eagle legs lowered, the dots change the look to copy KM counting dots (2 outer rings and a button) and their location, separator line between nominal and the year changes the shape becoming pointy on its sides. They even trying to copy the eagle (see the tail and beaks?) and a shield on the eagle. If anything, the eagle side of 2-nd EM type is more similar to KM 2-nd type, that the 1-st types. The other elements do not change and are carried over from the 1-st type: form and shape of font (lettering) and numbers (year). The inner rings keep their diameter.

 

I'll add pictures later, when I'll get around to combining them sometime next week hopefully.

 

What do you think of this? Any suggestions or questions? Anything is missing?

[sigistenz]

Hi Eugene, your conclusions look pretty convincing.

Thinking about muled coins (one side old design the other side new design) which can be seen at EM with Catherine II and Alexander quite often - KM must have been careful to avoid mules. As we know the 5 kopek design changed in 1788 with both EM and KM mints. There are 2 1788EM mules of old and new sides - but none with KM. Maybe the early 1802KM dies were still at hand but just carefully avoided.

As to the edge of my #6 (5kop1802KM later type) it looks indeed like being done twice ("overedged" in the sense of "overstruck"). But I do not believe in that. Why should that innecessary job have been done? Do you know the edging tool of the time? It was of French origin and name, I have it depicted somewhere in my library. Will search for the picture if necessary. As the overedging only shows at two areas of the edge at exactly opposite positions I think the "overedge" effect is due to that tool.

It would be helpful to research in mint archives (if they still exist). I wonder what Russian forums would have to say to your conclusions.

Thank you for widening my horizon once again!

Best, Sigi

.

[extant4cell]

That's an excellent point, Sigi, about the absence of KM mules in 1788 and further on. The coins did not change the diameter with the change of die design, so the different sizes of dies as I thought was an explanation in 1802 coins for mules absence, is not exclusive, the stronger level of control is also in play to a high degree, as it was easier to execute on KM, due to a much smaller scale of operation compare to EM.

 

With edging of 2nd type 1802 KM, I don't believe it was done twice. One, or even both sides (a and b ) of the instrument use could have been "corrected" from the old to a new pattern, keeping an "afterimage" of the old image, that could only be seeing when the pressure on the blank intensified. That's one of the possible explanations. The other, may be the use of an old and a new instrument in combination, kind of like a mule edge... In that case, they may leave it or if the error realized, it could have been corrected with running a few blanks through the machine again using the instrument with the new (correct) image. Both errors are possible in theory, I am not 100% sure which one took place in making your coin, but think it might have been an afterimage effect of corrected instrument (from old to new image). Please correct me, I may be wrong here. What do you think?

 

I will not be able to check what the Russian forum will say to these findings, until September. They are in-line with an accepted default version, so I think there won't be much dissonance. Unfortunately, due to issues I had with one member's behavior, I had to tell him off, that I am not proud of, so I have been disconnected from Russian forum for a month. Not a bad thing, as it will give me time to think...

 

[sigistenz]

Edging machine - I recall a different picture of an earlier phase of edging - guy pushing an upper bar. Will have to search - I think it was in in the Journal of the Russian Numismatic Society

Sigi

 

.

[extant4cell]

Hi Sigi, Please post a picture, if you will find it. I think I saw it somewhere too, but can not place my finger on it in my memory...

[extant4cell]

Here is another interesting combination. Look at separation line on reverse :

 

 

I wish I had a pic without watermark...

[sigistenz]

Here is another interesting combination. Look at separation line on reverse :

 

 

I wish I had a pic without watermark...

 

 

What is the difference?

 

Sigi

.

 

.

 

[extant4cell]

 

the separation line between "копеек" and "1803" too slim and straight, looks like from 1802, but probably just cut slim by the engraver who must have been still confused by the change...

[sigistenz]

It is not very distinct - I would not consider that a noteworthy variant. Also the "5" is slightly more slanting, the "E" of the mintmark somewhat slanted, too. But to my taste all this is not different enough to be a variant - is it in Russia?

Sigi

 

.

[extant4cell]

I think it is in Russia. I was on sale a while ago. I think, by the guy who keeps the site where all these pictures are from. I thought it might be an error, not a variant. But the top part is not very distinct on the picture, and the bottom part is like Type-2 anyway. May be just the light playing up...