Jump to content
CoinPeople.com

5 kop.1787EM - new(1788) type - Bitkin R4


Recommended Posts

The 2003 DIAKOV, RUSSIAN COINS OF CATHERINE II listed a hitherto unknown coin, a 5 kopek 1787EM struck from dies which appeared only the year later (from1788 on). I rubbed ,my eyes: how come that this coin had never been mentioned in any of the earlier reference books? A new discovery? Most unlikely, very suspicious.... See the DIAKOV entry copied below

 

Diakov5kop1788EM.jpg

But then the 2nd edition of Bitkin (also 2003) listed it, too, as #638a (R4) without picturing it, Could the coin be true, after all?

 

Then in the 2014 NY sale one of them appeared in photograpy, fetched $7'000, see m-dv's picture of it below

 

 

 

NYsale5kop1787EM.jpg

My doubts nearly disappeared but then I found proof that 1787 dies of the new design had existed - the coin below. It clearly is an 1787 overdated to 1788. Had there been dies of the 1787 new design there would have been at least a few experimental strikes.

The coin is of modest grade but I am proud to have my 1787EM(new dies) even though overdated 1788. :crazy:

 

5kop1788EMover7newdesign.jpg

 

 

Sigi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting find Sigi!

 

According to catalogues it was not uncommon for Russian mints to issue coins (both copper and silver) with next year's design in current year. Any idea for the cause(s) of that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably because the new dies were introduced during the current year. In our case that must have happened just before the end of the 1787 date. (I think I read somewhere that the mint year did not correspond to the calendar year).

Sigi

.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a very interesting topic, Sigi.

 

From what I remember, the year in Russia used to start on 1 of September (or another Autumn month), until Peter I has introduced it on 1 of January. The old new year became kind of like a financial year start, and was important for reporting, let's say - how much coins were produced, but only calendar year would actually appear on the coins.

 

Again, this is only my opinion, but the last "7" in the date on the new type coins with date 1787 that you showed is a little bit "fishy" in form, and on the two known coins it sits under a little bit different angle, which should not happen for the dies in the first year, as the date would sit on the master die. Also, that is my guess, that if the coins were in fact issued in 1787 and in a very small number as a trial, the dies would be reasonably new, and the field would be very smooth. The eagle side of the coin from Markov shows the signs of die deterioration. These are my grounds for reasonable doubts that the date on 1787 coins is genuine. So, I would leave the question of minting these coins in 1787 still open, until more coins with this date can be examined.

 

It always kills me, with coins like that, if they are in fact fake, "how did they make them!!"... On the other hand there were some coins in the past that were deemed as fake, but turned out to be genuine.

 

There is no doubt, though, that the dies (or at least the forms for die making) with 1787 date were made and that the over-date is genuine on your coin, and that it is a rare find by you Sigi. :yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Additional information on 1787 and more on 1788 overdate pyataks:

 

This one is a possibly genuine coin (at least there were some comments for it), though a picture is horrible...

 

post-2480-0-51047600-1445771683.jpg

 

post-9455-0-32156400-1386258220.jpg.90f5

 

The above coin was again for sale recently at one of the auctions and was taken off the auction with undisclosed reason.

 

 

murzilka.jpg.2743a44312c4bd10608e517dda7

 

Above is the verdict from "Society of Friends of State Historical Museum" stating that 1787 5 kopecks with new obv / rev is a genuine coin.

There is a wide-spread criticism of some of the society expert statements when it comes to 18th c. coppers, including the one above.

 

Below is another couple of examples of an over-date coin.

 

msg-36669-0-75463100-1465369521.jpg.38e0

 

post-13108-0-54382100-1444599575.jpg

 

If it can be doubted that the 1787 new obv / rev pyatak is genuine, it is clear that the master form(s) for 1788 pyataks were made in 1787, with the last number in the year changed from 7 to 8 for 1788 dies production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eugene, lucky you.That is a great coin you hunted down, it is much much better than mine. It is undoubtedly the 1788/7 overdate. The die of the monogram side looks like mine (see the top crown), except for the date ciphers. They seem to have been punched into the die with a different set of punches. The eagle side is slightly different, your left eagle has no tongue, the inner side of your left wing looks different from mine. Look at the NY sale picture above and at Diakov's catalog entry - no two of all the coins seen here are alike. Funny, isn't it? Congratulations to your outstanding coin :mf_lust:

Sigi

.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Sigi! I would pass it by if you didn't share your findings here and in private. Still hunting for Elisaveta's coins mainly, and accidentally found this one with a seller who was selling 2 kopecks... Always, happy to acquire and interesting coin when I can afford it. It looks like there were several dies with this overdate, which proves that their master forms were made in 1787. It makes sense to assume that master forms were made in pairs, in order to make dies for both sides. We can guess that both sides were made in 1787 and had slightly different variants in forms. Once you assume that, it's easy to assume that there was at least a sample minting done with these dies to be sent to St. Petersburg to get OK for using them in production. When Ekaterinburg got OK and started to use them in main production we don't know, but we see overdates in 1788 and some rare 1787 coins that are debated over their authenticity. What is clear to me is that there were some of these coins made in 1787, at least as a trial and sample strike. If Markov's coin is authentic or not, it is hard to judge without holding it in hand. It is less likely in my view, but anything is possible with 18th c. coins. And if it's not, there should be others that are genuine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigi, I think this is another overdate, that no one noticed before!!! From GM:

 

1788%20overdate%20GM%205%20k.jpg

 

Not as obvious, but it is overdate, I am pretty sure...

 

There is nothing in GM documents about these coins change over of dies. But there is one little mentioning in the document from 31/12/1787 that apparently the EM copper coins production was stopped earlier in 1787 due to water going down and not able to power up the machines...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In my French edition (Quarterman) of GM the pictures are not very sharp. Impossible to see the overdate. It shows only when enlarged, see below. You seem to have the rare and expensive original edition of GM? Yours is a wonderful sharp picture. Both the (funny looking) 8s have something underlying, the 2nd "8" is clearly over 7 - but what about the 1st "8" ? Is it over a “1“?

I can't imagine anything else though it is absurd. 1788/17 overdate? :confus:

 

 

 

Josh, you are right, I enjoy this very much, too. Sadly enough the forum has lost much of its previous bustle. Let's try to contribute more.

Sigi

 

.

date1788.jpg.

Ah, before I forget - Eugene said the new dies were made in EM and sent to СПМ for approval. I had expected new dies being made in СПМ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that if SPM made the dies for EM the image would be closer to classical Dasier or Hedlinger eagles.


5_kopeek_1787_goda_TM_4411.jpg1_54896b04954dc.jpgimg_0.jpg



The new 1788 EM eagle is too different from SPM understanding of what eagle should look like.
EM were capable to produce their own design, however crude and brutal it looked.

For the eagle side SPM only supplied EM with the tools for making their first 5 kopecks in 1758.

After that you can see it's changing form from classical to the new brutal 1788 form. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...