Novodels or Die Trials?

And What Happened to the 1760 Dies?

The Russian numismatic world is aware that the copper issue of 1762 had its predecessor in 1760 and 1761 with the same design. The coins dated 1761 are pure fantasy novodels, made with new dies made long after the fact. The 1760 issue on the other hand is of extreme importance.

Russia’s economic conditions brought on by very successful but financially demanding wars, faced the Cabinet with the necessity of devaluing the copper coinage. The scheme of doubling the denomination of each existing coin was the most obvious

On October 31, 1760, Count Pavel Shuvalov submitted a proposal to the Senate “Concerning the reissue of copper coins from 16 rubles to the pood of copper to 32”. The most likely samples of pattern coins were submitted for approval along with the Proposal, as was customary. Today only two of these pattern coins are known to survive- a 2 kopeck piece in the Hermitage collection in St. Petersburg and a 1 kopeck coin in the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC. 1760 denga, 4 kopeck and 10 kopeck patterns exist, but all three are represented only by uniface copper strikings in the Hermitage, the State Historical Museum (GIM) in Moscow and in the Smithsonian Institution. All those uniface pieces show signs of die deterioration: a massive crack on the 10 kopecks and quite strong die rust on the 4 kopecks and denga. This die deterioration has led many to suppose that those pieces are not patterns but novodels, made some time after the actual date of 1760, but struck with the original dies.

In the 1994 edition of the standard work “Coins of Russia XVIII-early XX centuries” Uzdenikov devotes a chapter to the patterns of 1760, beginning on page 189 and titled “ Novodels of three Copper Coins of 1760”. Uzdenikov also mentions in this chapter an unspecified number of other uniface 10 kopeck pieces and a specific mule novodel of denga of 1760 with a novodel Petrine altyn obverse. In his compilation “Coins of Russia” which Uzdenikov published two years earlier, there is an interesting entry. Applying to the description of item No 2609 appears footnote No144 which reads: “There is a 4 kopeck coin dated 1762 struck from the reverse die on which the last digit “0” of the date has been reengraved into “2”.

Illustrated here are photographs of another such coin that I once had in stock. Also, there are pictures of an unpublished 2 kopeck piece with very clearly repunched ”2” over “0” that I also had. Several phone conversations with E.V. Lepekhina and V.A. Kalinin of the Hermitage have established that two 1-kopeck pieces that they have in their main collection show the 1762 date with “2” reengraved over “0”; both their dengas however have the clear date 1762.

From what has been said, I propose the following sequence of events (note that for the sake of uniformity I have altered some of the terminology when it uses synonyms of the terms more commonly met). There were five denominations of copper coins for the reform of 1760: 10 kopecks, 4 kopecks, and 2 kopecks, 1 kopeck, and a denga. One sample, a pattern piece, of each denomination was struck and routinely submitted to the Senate for approval. These pieces failed to win the Senate’ approval, were then routinely sent back to the Mint. Since then 10 kopecks, 4 kopecks and denga have disappeared. The Mint filed away the samples of the 2 kopecks and 1 kopeck patterns, along with their respective dies, in one storage room, but the dies of the other denominations, without the corresponding patterns, were evidently sent to some other storage place, possibly in the humid basement.

Two years later, under Peter III, the project of the reform was revived and an urgent overstriking campaign began. Time was of the essence. As part of the program it was decided to restore the old dies of 1760 and repunch the final digit “0” into a “2”. Only two dies were found together with the pattern samples of the 1 kopeck and 2 kopeck coins. These dies were immediately repunched to show “2” over “0” and put to use. Work on new dies for the remaining denominations began. When the work on the new dies had reached quite an advance stage, the news came from the Peter and Paul Fortress that the old dies of 1760 have been found in the basement. One die of 10 kopeks had been badly cracked and the two other remaining dies were noticeably rusty. It was decided to strike off a few impressions from these dies to see if they could be restored and put to use to produce business strikes. Obviously the dies were not in shape to go straight into the press, they would have to be had cleaned up, most likely annealed and tempered again, and touched up. The resulting impressions from them, after these titivations had been done, that properly should be called “die trials”, are the uniface pieces we have the samples of today. All of them display some signs of touching up, which led Lepekhina to see in them an analogy with latter-day novodels of different coins, where signs of touching up the dies is a definitive characteristic of novodels.

The break in the die of the 10 kopeck piece, going almost clear across the diameter of the coin, was so pronounced that using it to strike coins in quantity was clearly impracticable. Almost certainly it shattered by the time a few sample pieces had been made. Other than a few samples from among the small group of uniface die trial strikes, we have no evidence of any further life of that die.

The new denga die, being the smallest in size, was almost ready by then. Since no large production of that denomination was envisaged, it was cheaper just to finish the new die than going to the trouble of making the rusted old one suitable for the 1762 conversion. This explains the origin of the two new denga novodels with altyn obverses that the Hermitage has, which were made sometime in the first half of the 19^th century.

The story with the 4 kopecks is altogether different. This denomination is by far the most common of 1762 series even today, so there would have been a need for as many dies as possible, hence restoring the old 1760 die and making it into a 1762 one was well worth the cost.

In my phone conversation with Uzdenikov a little later, he approved my hypothesis and suggested further elaboration on it. In order to make the 1760 die usable, the surface would have been scraped and the design features “deepened”. Accordingly all elements of the design were repunched or reengraved except the last digit of the date, since this was to be changed into a “2”. Some doubling may thus be evident. Unfortunately the sample I had in stock that is pictured here has such a busy surface, from the host undercoin, and from handling and wear, that it is difficult to detect such doubling. Entirely consistent with Uzdenikov’s suggestion is the very fine trace of “0” under the“2” (though this is not as bold as on the 2 kopek piece). But it is the style, spacing and alignment of other elements of the design of pieces that come from this die that strike one as slightly but unmistakably different from what one sees on clear 1762 coins, and they are reminiscent of the 1760 uniface piece.

Uzdenikov was uncomfortable with the use of the term “die trials” for the uniface coins, since in Russian such a term as “proba shtempelya” is equated with the term ”pattern”. Since the coins in question were not struck in 1760, but later, in 1762, he preferred the term novodel. Novodel can of course be a confusing and debatable term because it incorporates so many different categories. Uzdenikov, when referring to the uniface pieces as novodels, employs only one specific definition, namely that they were made later than the date indicated (1760). However, most collectors of Russian coins, when they hear the word novodel, expect to see a tacky 19^th century reproduction or restrike at best, made to the order of, more often than not, some tacky collector who main simply had the money to squander at the Mint. As a rule, if original dies were used to produce novodels, their use was not limited to just a single episode. Repeated later strikes were normal. But with our uniface pieces that is not the case, and if I am correct about the dates of three of the dies being changed into 1762, one could confidently expect to find no samples struck after that date. When no original die was on hand, a new one would have had to be made up. That is what happened in this case: a set of coins with the “trophy of arms” design but with the date 1761 was made for collectors – made anew and long after 1762. All these facts did not escape Uzdenikov’s attention. He very correctly noted that the evidence of the die deterioration rules out the uniface pieces to be patterns of 1760, but did not suppose them to be the die trials for 1762. Novodels as a rule were made in “finished” handsome condition and carry an impression from the edging device. These three have unfinished, hand-cut and filed edges. Right away another association comes to mind. I have handled in the past many die trials for medals. Since medals most often were restruck upon demand for a paying customer, it was traditional to pull a die trial to determine whether the dies were in good shape and, if not, to determine what repair needed to be done. The planchets of these trials were often sloppy, especially around the edges. The similarity of those die trials and the uniface pieces of 1760 is so striking that I suggest the later must be similarly produced die trials for the issue of 1762.

The proper numismatic terminology in English is in agreement with the term “die trial” as simply a definition of the impression from the die for the purpose of verification of that die’s quality. Therefore without the least disrespect for Uzdenikov’s opinion, indeed with the deepest respect for it, we will leave the linguistic debate to the linguists and leave Russian numismatists to choose their terminology. In the present case, however, a spade is inescapably a spade, and the uniface pieces should accordingly be called die trials.

Once again to summarize: the life story of the 1760 dies fits our definition. One sample of each denomination was struck in 1760. Of these only the 1 kopeck and 2 kopek pieces survive today. In 1762 the dies of 1 and 2 kopecks were repunched into 1762, and thus ceased to exist. Several specimens of 10, 4 kopecks and the denga were struck uniface at the same time in 1762 for the purpose of verifying the usefulness of the dies. The 10 kop, which already had a crack, was seen to be irreparable - that ended its existence. The 4 kop die was repunched into 1762 and thus as 1760 piece it vanished as well. The denga die was not used and thus for a while it became the only survivor of 1760 dies. Later, in the 19^th century, this genuine denga 1760 die was paired with some implausible-looking newly-made dies imitating the altyn of Peter I. As mentioned, there were two samples of these hybrid novodels in the Hermitage and none known elsewhere, so I assume that most likely the denga die broke soon after and hence did not become a source of other novodels.

_____________

Relevant to our discussion is an event that took place late in the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna. In 1757 the Mint produced several pattern piataks during the preparations to introduce the new 16-rubles-to-the-pood copper coinage, which Count Pyotr Shuvalov had proposed.

All of these rare pattern pieces carry the Imperial cipher and the date on one side, while on the other side St. George, the Arms of the city of St Petersburg, and the Arms of Siberia are variously presented. None of the three designs was accepted for the piatak, the familiar eagle and value design being chosen.

Business coinage of the new piataks began in 1758, continued through Elizabeth’s reign and, after the one-year interruption under Peter III, continued under Catherine II, with her cipher, through 1796.

A recent examination of a number of 1759 pyataks showed that several of them were struck from an original 1757 cipher die, with the date recut from 1757 to 1759. Presumably a sufficient number of 1758 dies were produced, but the presence of several specimens with the recut 1759/7 date suggests the possibility that a shortage of 1759 dies may have developed and tat as a stopgap measure the mint pressed into regular service the idle cipher dies of the 1757 pattern group, updating the year. This episode, which came very shortly before the events we have been discussing, would seem to give added substance to our thesis and would show that the mint had already developed the frugal habit of salvaging pattern dies, redating them and then using them to supplement the production of business strikes.

_____________

This little article is the result of many sleepless nights and of encouragement from friends and colleagues. I should like to express my appreciation to Ran Zander, who is always encouraging, but specifically in this case when I first noticed the 4 kopecks with 1762/0. He urged me to write about it. To Oleg Elistratov who offered me a 2 kopecks 1762/0 and supplied me with his own research material that pointed me in the right direction. To Ekaterina Vitalyevna Lepekhina and Vitaly Alexandrovich Kalinin for checking the very rare 1 kopeck pieces that the Hermitage has in its trays, as well as the only two known dengas. I thank them for setting forth their opinions and aiming me the right way. And last but definitely not least to Vasily Vasilyevich Uzdenikov who confirmed, encouraged and offered further advice to finalize this version, as well as for all he has written on the subject. This was more than enough to start the ball rolling.