Kopeck - Peter I

I get some wire.I've tried to categorize them, but I'd like to hear your opinions on this one.

N#377253

0.26g、10.9mm~7.3mm

(postscript)There are many different types, which is interesting, but also difficult.

Second one is Ivan IV's denga, if it is around same weight as Peter's kopeck.

Peter's kopek is from 1701 to 1709. You have to check nine years.

tokul

Second one is Ivan IV's denga, if it is around same weight as Peter's kopeck.

 

Peter's kopek is from 1701 to 1709. You have to check nine years.

What I want to do is check the answer.I think there's a link too...
What do you think about it?

amakitu_Japan

tokul

Second one is Ivan IV's denga, if it is around same weight as Peter's kopeck.

 

Peter's kopek is from 1701 to 1709. You have to check nine years.

What I want to do is check the answer.I think there's a link too...
What do you think about it?

https://web.archive.org/web/20240302110311/http://silver-copeck.ru/215.html

“На монетах второй группы всадник всегда изображен без плаща. Легенда монет второй группы, отчеканенных в период с 1701 по 1709 год, имеет короткую формулировку — ЦРЬ ПЕРТ АЛЕКСЕЕВИЧ.”

“Second group of coins has rider without a mantle. Lettering on second group of coins, that were minted in period from 1701 to 1709, has only short ruler name and title - Czar Peter Alekseyevich”

Most of four line coins are from Кадашевск mint. Year is under the rider. Your example lost it to time. It did not have a lot of year information stamped to begin with.

This is over ten year old reference source. There are newer sources after discoveries in 2015.

tokul

amakitu_Japan

tokul

Second one is Ivan IV's denga, if it is around same weight as Peter's kopeck.

 

Peter's kopek is from 1701 to 1709. You have to check nine years.

What I want to do is check the answer.I think there's a link too...
What do you think about it?

https://web.archive.org/web/20240302110311/http://silver-copeck.ru/215.html

 

“На монетах второй группы всадник всегда изображен без плаща. Легенда монет второй группы, отчеканенных в период с 1701 по 1709 год, имеет короткую формулировку — ЦРЬ ПЕРТ АЛЕКСЕЕВИЧ.”

 

“Second group of coins has rider without a mantle. Lettering on second group of coins, that were minted in period from 1701 to 1709, has only short ruler name and title - Czar Peter Alekseyevich”

 

Most of four line coins are from Кадашевск mint. Year is under the rider. Your example lost it to time. It did not have a lot of year information stamped to begin with.

 

This is over ten year old reference source. There are newer sources after discoveries in 2015.

This time,I just want to know  my classification correct or not?

I judged it to be GKH2# 1307(1701).

Most of the designs for Peter I's wire are lacked. So I would like to use your opinions to make sure they are correct.
In the past, there have been cases where the designs were correct, and there have been cases where they were completely wrong.

I have also read some of the literature.

This is not so straigtforward. I agree with you with the ID-ing of the reverse, but that is only half of the story, which narrows down your possibilities. You need to succesfully ID the obverse side too.

The problem is that most obverses have been used with many other reverses and most reverses have versions with other obverses.

I've looked into the KG# catalogue (This one: https://en.numista.com/literature/volume.php?id=115 and also that is used in here: https://kyiv2014.com/copeck/215.html).

I found these coins are sharing the same reverse as yours (reverse number 19):

KG#1656 (not in Numista, see: https://kyiv2014.com/copeck/8013/1701.html), year 1701

KG#1661 (N#377920), year 1701

KG#1668 (not in Numista, see: https://kyiv2014.com/copeck/8013/1701.html), year 1701

KG#1679 (The link you've shared: N#377253), year 1701

KG#1690 (not in Numista, see: https://kyiv2014.com/copeck/8013/1702.html), year 1702

The key details on their obverses are the dates between the hoofs of the horse. Which is almost completely missing from your coin, just a tiny bit of detail left. There are also small differences in the position of the boot of the rider. In some reverses, its sole is almost flush with the belly of the horse, on other instances, the boot is protruding below the belly.

I think that there are two possibilities with the mintmark. It's either an 'O' as in the coin you've linked or a squigy line (~) in every other options.
Becasue of the small amount of material left, I think both option is possible. But if you check how deep the boot prutrudes under the belly of the horse, I'd lean into the second option, the squigly line. Now sadly, there are multiple options with that and you'd need the mintmark to pinpoint things further.

I'd say it's definitely Peter I, from the year 1701 or maybe 1702, but I'd refrain to ID it for a 100% sure. I think that your coin is in the five that I've listed out, I'd say that it's not the KG#1679, but something else, but considering how much is missing, we may never know.


Is this a squigly line ‘~’ or an ‘O’? I think both can be possible.


 

SGreg85

This is not so straigtforward. I agree with you with the ID-ing of the reverse, but that is only half of the story, which narrows down your possibilities. You need to succesfully ID the obverse side too.

The problem is that most obverses have been used with many other reverses and most reverses have versions with other obverses.

 

I've looked into the KG# catalogue (This one: https://en.numista.com/literature/volume.php?id=115 and also that is used in here: https://kyiv2014.com/copeck/215.html).

I found these coins are sharing the same reverse as yours (reverse number 19):

KG#1656 (not in Numista, see: https://kyiv2014.com/copeck/8013/1701.html), year 1701

KG#1661 (N#377920), year 1701

KG#1668 (not in Numista, see: https://kyiv2014.com/copeck/8013/1701.html), year 1701

KG#1679 (The link you've shared: N#377253), year 1701

KG#1690（Numistaには載っていません。https: //kyiv2014.com/copeck/8013/1702.htmlをご覧ください）、1702年@@表面の重要な詳細は、馬の蹄の間の日付です。これはあなたのコインではほとんど完全に欠落しており、ほんの少しの詳細が残っているだけです。ライダーのブーツの位置にも小さな違いがあります。いくつかの裏面では、ブーツの靴底が馬の腹とほぼ同じ高さですが、他の例ではブーツが腹の下に突き出ています。@@ミントマークには2つの可能性があると思います。リンクしたコインのように「O」か、他のすべてのオプションのように波線（~）です。@残っている材料の量が少ないため、両方のオプションが可能だと思います。しかし、ブーツが馬の腹の下にどれだけ深く突き出ているかを確認すると、2番目のオプション、つまり波線に傾きます。残念ながら、その可能性は複数あり、さらに正確に特定するにはミントマークが必要になります。@@ピョートル1世の1701年製か1702年製であることは間違いないと思いますが、100%確実に特定するのは控えたいと思います。あなたのコインは私が挙げた5枚のうちの1枚だと思います。KG#1679ではなく、何か別のものだと思いますが、欠けている部分が多いので、真偽は永遠に分からないかもしれません。@@@これは「~」という波線でしょうか、それとも「O」でしょうか？ どちらの可能性もあると思います。@@

Thank you for the ideal answer I was hoping for.
Of course. Peter the Great's designs are so lacked that it's a real pain for us.Mint marks are also a real problem.

When I get back to my original home, I plan to check the details with my usual camera and magnifying glass, and approach it from the perspective of subtle differences in the design.
To be honest, the year inscription is unknown, and I think it will be difficult to identify it other than from the typeface of the inscription and the distinct features of the horse part.I wish the knight's side had been placed at least a few millimeters lower…..haha

Also, if you have any comments, I would be happy if you could let me know.

KG#1668 is the most similar,I felt.However, I still feel it would be better to wait until the environment is ready.

I take a better photo.
I'll start the process of guessing and identifying it based on the engraving.

< src="https://en.numista.com/forum/images/miniatures/68b1c31eeb085.png">