extant4cell Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 Your opinion. I made up my mind on one or the other, but I think you should judge for yourself first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kopeikin Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 novodel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extant4cell Posted January 20, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 ...so is my opinion, I am with you 100%! To my genuine surprise they are being positioned as trial SPB coins made by dies made for TM. With such week quality and poor detailisation of lines etc... trial - nonsense. If you read Russian, you can read the topic: http://coins.su/forum/topic/205326-kopeika-1710-md-probnaya/?do=findComment&comment=2282535 There is an interesting 1 KO 1710 shown at the start of it. Pair for the denga from GM collection, supposedly Alekseev's ( http://www.staraya-moneta.ru/lib/1104/?sphrase_id=1319176 ) search for new coin forms, according to Smirnov. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigistenz Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 I'd also agree to old novodels. Did you notice the almost illisible "UNIVERSITÄT GÖTTINGEN" overlaying the pictures? Looks like that German university owns the coins? Sigi . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extant4cell Posted January 21, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 That's correct. They have coins that were collected by students and/or donated by patrons. These coins are from a very old collection that interrupted at the reign of Paul I, or so it was reported by a person who has shown them. I believe it is an old novodel, possibly even made with the use of original instruments to produce the novodel dies. Original dies passed to TM from SPM had no last number of the year, or so was reported by Winkler as he found it in the archived documents. "6" was added to the novodel master dies manually. The collection used to belong to one of the barons and has many interesting novodels and some interesting original or questionable coins yet to be researched. I guess they should appear here in time http://www.kenom.de/suche/-/DEFAULT%3A%28russland%29+OR+FULLTEXT%3A%28russland%29+OR+NORMDATATERMS%3A%28russland%29+OR+UGCTERMS%3A%28russland%29/1/-/DOCSTRCT%3AM%C3%BCnze%3B%3BMD_KENOM_INDEX_MUENZSTAND_LAND_ORT_LANDESTEIL_LINIE_UNTOKENIZED%3A%22Russland%22/ (the Russian coin part of their image data-base is under construction I trust). The collection that used to belong to the baron stops at Paul I, so it's safe to assume that novodels were made just before... Times of EII were notorious for novodels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IgorS Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 It is a little confusing. Where there original dies without last digit 6? If yes, why not use them to add the 6 and strike coins? Why cut new dies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extant4cell Posted January 21, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 If they were probe / trial coins, I guess that's what would happen, and no additional beautification. Who knows what instruments they had left over at SPM to produce novodel dies? Just looking at 2 kopecks TM I see that they are VERY similar to original, and to some degree BETTER than original coins produced by TM. Differences are noticeable: left part of a scroll, top part of dragon's tail, lead that St. George holds and crown that stands perfectly leveled... and fine lines... all that points to novodel to me. It is always tempting to ID such novodels as probe / trial coins, the same problem as with Siberian (KM) novodels that partly original instruments were used to produce. Many confuse them with trials... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RARENUM Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 It is a little confusing. Where there original dies without last digit 6? If yes, why not use them to add the 6 and strike coins? Why cut new dies? IgorS, My opinion coins with missing last digital is Novodels. Rarenum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 Hello, I've missed a bit of discussion - been away for a while I guess while it's easy to say they are novodel just from the appearance - I do have reservation against it. Firstly, regardless whether they are novodel or pattern coins and if I am not wrong, this has not been documented for more than 200 years! This is assuming they are genuine "coins". I do have to ask this question - could any rich collectors back in those days write to St. Petersburg mint and ask for any coins to be "restruck" or there was some kind of catalog? If there is one - I am interested to see it! To me, the year 1786 raises questions. Crimea was annexed by Russia in 1783 and the mint officially opened in 1787. A key important event occurred when Catherine II made her visit to Crimea in 1787. I would not be surprised that very few trial pieces were struck before the mint opened in 1787. Now if this is indeed novodel, why 1786 instead of 1787 or 1788? I can't quite seem to make any sense yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extant4cell Posted January 26, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2017 These coins ment to represent trial coins struck by SPM in 1786. Winkler reported that the first dies were made from tin in 1785 and one sided tin copies of "coins" were produced for approval and any suggestions. They had a date 178 on them and no mint markings, to which Potemkin commented that mint letter will be TM. The master dies were produced for TM by SPM in 1786. Presumably trials were struck, but no one knows if master dies were made with a full year, or not. Given that TM wasn't really ready yet, one can assume the date was not produced in full. But that is the area of assumptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extant4cell Posted January 26, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2017 Plus, era of E2 produced multitudes of novodels. There were no known catalogue for novodels, and you had to have connections in high society and high standing reputation in order to get them done for you. But once your stars aligned properly, you could order anything rare... or so I understand from reading what was available on novodels in Spasski and others. There are more documented stories on 19th c. novodels. 18th c. is very sketchy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted January 26, 2017 Report Share Posted January 26, 2017 I guess this is where I'm puzzled - if this is indeed novodel, wouldn't Chapsky or Lisenko wanted one in their collection? I would be puzzled if they didn't want high quality TM coins in their collection. I'm certain they would not have missed this opportunity. I could be wrong... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extant4cell Posted January 26, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2017 Wouldn't they try to get trials or high grade originals over novodels first? If it was ordered in 1 or 2 copies on request from some foreign diplomat, no-one else may ever know... Until now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extant4cell Posted April 13, 2020 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2020 You can see good quality pictures without owner marks now on their site: https://www.kenom.de/suche/-/DEFAULT%3A%28russland+AND+1786%29+OR+FULLTEXT%3A%28russland+AND+1786%29+OR+NORMDATATERMS%3A%28russland+AND+1786%29+OR+UGCTERMS%3A%28russland+AND+1786%29/1/-/-/ Similar 5 kopecks were apparently shown in 2010: My opinion that it is a novodel or an "antique counterfeit" hasn't changed at all... Compare to original TM 1787, 1786 coin has poor quality eagle (see right tip of the wing with "fingers", and tail), poor execution of scroll ends, that don't match anything of that time and very poor numbers in the year... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted April 21, 2020 Report Share Posted April 21, 2020 I saw this discussion on Staraya Moneta yesterday. And here today. I sort of think we're all getting trapped by our own terminology. What I (as well as everyone else) can tell from looking at these coins, is that they were definitely not struck at TM for circulation purposes. What Eugene pointed out as well as the documentation provided by the GÖTTINGEN universtity indicates that the coins were struck at SPB on or before 1787. Did the mint workers really care if they were making a coin as a specimen for a TM mint or for a private collector? My guess is not so much. So we can say that the same people using the some equipment at the same place and more or less at the same time period would have made practically identical objects to fill the official government and private orders. I don't think they particularly cared if these objects would be later referred to as Novodels or Specimens. And I don't know how to distinguish between the two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extant4cell Posted April 22, 2020 Author Report Share Posted April 22, 2020 It would only seam like that. The problem is, and that is what some people failed to notice on SM (where we discussed 5 k coin, so I'll talk about that one) that equipment that was used is different. The dies are not the same dies that they used for making test minting with original dies, testing them for the future TM production. I hope to show it one day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted April 22, 2020 Report Share Posted April 22, 2020 Eugene, you'll have to show me what specifically you are referring to. The SM discussion is heavily edited and I only skimmed through it. I do want to point out that there is a difference between the production equipment and the trial strikes produced during the testing of that equipment and the specimens that were produced by SPB for the regional mints. We see this difference with the specimens produced for the Tifflis and Moldavia mints as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extant4cell Posted April 23, 2020 Author Report Share Posted April 23, 2020 I'll let you know when I'm ready. Will probably do another topic on SM and post main points here. 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.