1860, Russia, Alexander II, 1 Kopek, KM Y 3.1, unlisted year.

[Arminius]

Hello,

i stumbled on this one:



Russian Empire, Czar Alexander II (1855-81), Ekatrinburg mint, 1860 AD.,
1 Kopek (23 mm / 4,78 g), mintage ? , edge plain,
Obv.: A / II , A -monogram surmounted by a crown, within it the letter-numeral II.
Rev.: КОПҌЙКА / 1860. / E.M. , value in Cyrillic letters surmounted by a crown, date and mintmark below. (re-engraving traces at the 60 ?)
KM Y 3.1 (unlisted year for this type with plain edge) .

There is no visible trace of a toothed edge. The last year for this Ekatrinburg mint plain edge type according Krause is 1859.

Maybe my Krause is outdated, incomplete or wrong and a Russia expert will know more?

Regards

[Figleaf]

A puzzling coin. It should weigh 4 grams exactly. Are you sure of the weight? Also, my copy of this type is 22mm. Moreover, though it is hard to read, I do believe the mintmark is BM (Warsaw), not EM.

Peter

[Arminius]

Peter you are right, the mint mark is B. M. for Warsaw. So it´s from the last listed year of Y 3.2 .

However my reported measures are correct. Maybe Krause is wrong for the Warsaw mint?

The diameter is 23 mm and the weight is 4,78 g on a correct scale (checked and re-calibrated with a Portuguese 5 €-cent piece of 4,02 g and a German 10 €-Cent piece of 4,01 g.).

Maybe the Poles in Warsaw tried to banter the Russians by making their own standards? 

[Figleaf]

Thats almost 20% to heavy. If the diameter is about right, either the coin is 20% thicker than usual, or the metal is wrong. The corrosion should have deducted mass and so should the wear. Not to any great extent, just to say you can't explain the weight difference with corrosion.

If you do find that the coin is thicker, this is a production error: the plate for the dies was not rolled to the required thickness. We'll never know if the error was an accident or sabotage of Poles, who wanted to increase the cost of Russian coins.

Peter

[gxseries]

I don't see it as rare - there's a couple on ebay and I don't see this coin any different. I don't have my catalog with me at the moment so I can't tell for sure.

It's not surprising to see the weight of the coin to be +- 10% as copper coins are weighed in terms of thousands. If the lot of copper coins are within tolerance, it's not a problem. I got a copper coin that's more than 50% overweight, a 5 kopek hockey puck that's supposed to be only around 50g weighs 76 grams or so. Now that's severely overweight!

[Arminius]

You are sooo right ...

[ciscoins]

I'm not an expert in coins of the Empire, but there are lots of EM kopeks at our auctions. And they are rather cheap.

[Arminius]

I´m shure that all your auctions are great and all of your coins will be outstanding and cheap - but that´s not the question here.

The question is: Is the size and weight of Warsaw mint Kopeks Y 3.2 always bigger than the contemporary Y 3.1 issues of the Moscow mint - or is this an error coin?

[gxseries]

As I mentioned before, it seems to be within the tolerance range. Technology back then was still not perfect as the mint staff would have weighed copper coins in terms of thousands. If it passed that test, it should be ok. Of course in the same lot, you can have two extreme lots and will still pass the test. If this is a gold coin, it's another story as all gold coins were weighed individually.

[Arminius]

Unfortunately this is my only specimen of the issue.

What was the tolerance range of Kopeks of this 1860 issue from the Warsaw mint?

You have any data to compile a statistical analysis (a solid data basis of more than 20 different specimens, calibrated scales and instruments for measuring, medium weights and sizes, standard deviations, ...)

- or are you just guessing?

[gxseries]

I'm quite insulted that everything I wrote here is simply put down to "guess" work. I am not obliged to fork out hundreds of dollars just to find out if you really have an error or even comment on this. For your reference, Uzdenikov's article about Russian mint weight tolerance is the one you should get. It's simply not an error coin not because of my "lack of knowledge" but your lack of materials.

[Figleaf]

May I remind you two that you are both speaking a foreign language and that this is the internet? Misunderstandings happen every week here and they get blown out of proportions by the net.

I think this thread is interesting and my interpretation of Arminius' question is:

"OK, so they are weighed by the thousand. As you say, that can lead to big anomalies. Has anyone ever found out just how big those anomalies can be? You have quoted a couple of examples, but what I am looking for is some statistical work, as I am interested to know how far this can go."

Peter