Is this 1725 Russian Rouble authentic? I did some research and I can't tell - are there any Russian coin buffs here? The coin weighs in at 28.2 grams compared to the reported Krause weight of 28.44 grams, which makes it off by 0.8%. So, I can't tell from the weight alone. I don't really want to do the drop test with the silver, or any sort of acid test. I'd be up for using a metal analyzer like the XRT one, but I don't have one of those around... The coin itself looks to be a sharp example, so I'm concerned that it may be a counterfeit, since not many of these in this good a shape would be around. I'm also unsure of how detailed the coin should be, since many of the online examples show lots of wear. I've attached photos of mine below, directly atop and angled. I'm hoping that some of the die markers can be matched up. From what I can tell, this specific variety is a KM#162.5 (PCGS image example shown below, pic from the web). NGC has an image example of this variety, but it looks different as you can see from the snapshot below of the coin's details page (e.g. the words circling near the rim on the obverse begin and end at different positions). It could possibly be a KM#162.6, but I couldn't find any examples of that online. The edge is plain with no reeding. I do wonder if it's a counterfeit since the details are sharp, but at the same time, many of the counterfeit examples are badly worn to hide any die markers. This example could take the opposite direction, perhaps if nicer examples are harder to come across. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance!
The surfaces of both coins in the large photos look too smooth. Did you say one was slabbed? I would pass if either was offered to me.
It's pics of the same coin, one angled shot and one directly atop. The coin isn't slabbed. It's interesting that the details are sharp if it were an old 18th century counterfeit, though that's not unheard of. I usually see counterfeits, especially the examples posted on CT, that are badly worn and made to look antique. I'm trying to match up the die markers, but it's difficult to find a very detailed example, at least one in XF condition, to compare it to.
Now I see the marks in the left field. I'm fairly certain more than one die was used for these and Russian coins are generally more grainy with die chips.
The surfaces of the coin reminds me of Chinese-made replicas that I used to buy on ebay (for educational purposes) back in 2007. Have you tried doing the ring test on a wooden table to see how much it sounds like silver? It would be ideal to do this test with a known authentic silver coin that's of a similar size.
I'm not a fan of damaging the coin, so I won't be able to do the drop/ring test, sorry. I just tried testing it for magnetism with an N52 neodymium magnet (a decently sized one of about 7/8" x 7/8" x 1/4" thick), and it doesn't stick, so at least I know there's no iron or nickel in it. The diameter is 41.5mm when measured directly with a caliper, against Krause's 40mm diameter. There are 41.5mm Roubles (e.g. 1727 Russian Rouble Peter II) but none of the varieties for 1725 of this design series seems to have been made (intentionally) at 41.5mm in diameter. However, this example appears to be an off-center strike, so I'm unsure how that factors in.
There's a 1724 version which has a similar reverse, KM# 162.4 - the "pillars" on the reverse seem to be more intricate in areas where there's no wear. Maybe the 1725 examples given by NGC are in a condition that doesn't show the details? And a 1725 year of a different design type but with similarly bordered "pillars" (or whatever they are) on the reverse, graded as mint state:
I do not think this coin is authentic. iPen: If you still need help with it, send me a PM, I`ll arrange more opinions from collectors with expertise in these particular coins.
To be honest, if I thought the coin was genuine I wouldn't have suggested trying the ring test. I was just trying to give you something to do to help confirm its lack of authenticity. I think what you have is a Chinese-made counterfeit/replica that typically sells for around $2 +/-. They are actually one coin that was photographed at different angles.
Agree, does not look right, the obverse fields are too smooth, and then the reverse fields exhibit an even texture or porosity to them that almost screams fake. The counterfeiter then tried to obscure that by cleaning the coin (hairlines seen everywhere that form a light polish to the fields) but he wasn't able to get to the protected areas of the fields in the center of the reverse.
I get that feeling, too, that it's a replica. But, I can't really tell by the die markers. Or maybe it looks a certain way? Not sure what it is.
You posted this exactly as I posted my question on what it is that appears fake. But yes, the fields do stand out in a bad way now that you mention it.
From my experience, and just reading your details and watching your photographs, I would say not authentic. http://www.coinarchives.com/w/results.php?search=1+ruble+1725&s=0&results=100
This cannot be genuine. The font and the overall appearance looks too modern, i.e. perfect circular planchet which no way could have happened back then. Remember the minting technology in 1700s wasn't perfected back then.
This does not look like a Chinese fake to me. Most likely eastern European copy. The Chinese ones tend to be less obvious.
