Reference Tables
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Notes on Coins in the Table
(i) The 1774 EM Polushka is unlisted in Uzdenikov. It
is listed in Bitkin (RRRR). The Brekke/Bakken supplement points out its
appearance in the Hermitage Duplicates sale of 1932. However based on Uzdenikov's
ommission Brekke & Bakken conclude that it was not genuine.
(2) The Table does not include the Cipher Series of 1796.
This series is (or will be) treated elsewhere.
On a stylistic note:
What, you might ask, is the point of all this empty space in the above
table? Why include the CM mint when it never made a Polushka in its existence?
Well, the answer is twofold:
Firstly, the table
layout is now uniform across all denominations. When you compare this page
with the Denga page, for example, you are starting with the same framework
in each case.
Secondly, all this
space, or lack of space, gives us an immediate graphical picture of which
mints were coining what, and when. The case of the CM mint is a good example.
We immediately saw from the table that the CM never minted a Polushka.
So, empty space does not necessarily imply no information!
Underline coins are in my collection. This
is for my benefit. Sorry everyone else
| Up(+1) |