Home› World & Ancient Coins Forum

Need help identifying a Russian coin

macjeffmacjeff Posts: 103 ✭✭
in World & Ancient Coins Forum
Hi all-

I've done some looking, but I've been unable to identify this coin. I got it from my father, and I believe my grandfather brought it with him when he bolted out of the old country. It's dated 1913, and seems to commemorate 300 years of something, and has Cyrillic lettering; other than that, I know nothing about it. Can anyone help with the backstory, purpose, denomination, composition, which is the obverse/reverse, etc...?

Thanks in advance!

image

Comments

  • tbirde56tbirde56 Posts: 2,161
    It looka like a man. Sorry, a Ruble. I'm at work so no details.
    Brad Swain

    World Coin & PM Collector
    My Coin Info Pages <> My All Experts Profile
    image
  • akdrvakdrv Posts: 110
    Y#70 1 ROUBLE, Weight 19.9960g., Composition 0.9 Silver .5786 ASW, 300th Anniversary of Romanov Dynasty, St.Petersburg Mint, Mintage 1,472,000
    OmniCoin Collection
  • macjeffmacjeff Posts: 103 ✭✭
    Wow-That was fast! Thanks!

  • LynchLynch Posts: 299
    The 2 men illustrated on the coin are Michael Romanov and Nicholas II - the first and last of the Romanov czars.
    "Think of the Press as a great keyboard on which the Government can play" – Joseph Goebbels

    "The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media" - William Colby, former CIA director
  • BigAlanBigAlan Posts: 311 ✭
    The 2 men illustrated on the coin are Michael Romanov and Nicholas II - the first and last of the Romanov czars.


    That depends on how you define "last Czar." When Nicholas II abdicated the throne he also renounced his son Aleksei's claim to the throne. This would have made Nicholas's brother, The Grand Duke Michael, Czar. Michael refused the throne. That didn't do him any good, he was executed the same month as his brother. But under Russian law Nicholas couldn't renounce his son's claim to the throne. Thus Aleksei would have ascended to the throne in 1917 and would have been the rightful Czar until 1918.
    "It is good for the state that the people do not think."

    Adolf Hitler
  • lordmarcovanlordmarcovan Posts: 43,654 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I think most people would consider Nicholas II "the last czar", though.

    Explore collections of lordmarcovan on CollecOnline, management, safe-keeping, sharing and valuation solution for art piece and collectibles.
  • LynchLynch Posts: 299


    << <i>The 2 men illustrated on the coin are Michael Romanov and Nicholas II - the first and last of the Romanov czars.


    That depends on how you define "last Czar." When Nicholas II abdicated the throne he also renounced his son Aleksei's claim to the throne. This would have made Nicholas's brother, The Grand Duke Michael, Czar. Michael refused the throne. That didn't do him any good, he was executed the same month as his brother. But under Russian law Nicholas couldn't renounce his son's claim to the throne. Thus Aleksei would have ascended to the throne in 1917 and would have been the rightful Czar until 1918. >>



    That's a very interesting argument, BigAlan.

    What law prevented Nicholas from renouncing his son's claim to the throne? Weren't the Czars traditionally absolute rulers who could do whatever they pleased?

    After doing a little reading (source), it seems to me that Nicholas' power was limited only in 1905 by his acceptance and recognition of an elected representative government. Was the law preventing him from renouncing his son's claim passed by this body? If not, what was the source of this legal restriction?

    Thank you for any light you can shed on this matter.
    "Think of the Press as a great keyboard on which the Government can play" – Joseph Goebbels

    "The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media" - William Colby, former CIA director
  • BigAlanBigAlan Posts: 311 ✭
    I'm not positive but I believe the law dates from Nicholas' grandfather, Alexander II. So while Nicholas could have revoked the law by decree, he couldn't renounce Aleksei's claim to the throne while the law was still in effect. It may also be that Nicholas' abdication in favor of his brother, The Grand Duke Michael, was also illegal because of Michael's secret morganatic marriage to Natasha.


    "She's such a cunning, wicked beast that it's disgusting even to talk about her."

    Nicholas II, November 21, 1912 referring to his new sister-in-law

    The "cunning, wicked beast" comment is tame when compared to views of Michael's mother concerning of her new daughter-in-law.
    "It is good for the state that the people do not think."

    Adolf Hitler
  • LynchLynch Posts: 299


    << <i>I'm not positive but I believe the law dates from Nicholas' grandfather, Alexander II. So while Nicholas could have revoked the law by decree, he couldn't renounce Aleksei's claim to the throne while the law was still in effect. It may also be that Nicholas' abdication in favor of his brother, The Grand Duke Michael, was also illegal because of Michael's secret morganatic marriage to Natasha.


    "She's such a cunning, wicked beast that it's disgusting even to talk about her."

    Nicholas II, November 21, 1912 referring to his new sister-in-law

    The "cunning, wicked beast" comment is tame when compared to views of Michael's mother concerning of her new daughter-in-law. >>



    Fascinating! Thank you for the information.
    "Think of the Press as a great keyboard on which the Government can play" – Joseph Goebbels

    "The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media" - William Colby, former CIA director
Sign In or Register to comment.