Military Review

Where and why were the first Soviet coins minted

44
Revolution is not the result of class struggle. Revolution is not an explosion of indignation, when the people's sufferings have exceeded any measure. Revolutions are a way to destroy one state by another. To cause an internal explosion in an opponent, weaken, crush, cause confusion and civil war. In the end - pick up a zone of influence of the opponent, his natural, material and human resources.


Is there an exception to this rule? There is. For example - the Cuban revolution, in which the external factor was absent. But all the revolutions in large countries, the main players on the geopolitical map of the world, always have a foreign origin.

And this “umbilical cord” is very often found in completely unexpected places.

Where and why were the first Soviet coins minted

Do you know where the first Soviet silver coins were issued?

The money of the victorious capitalism of the proletariat.


“This silver fifty dollars 1924 of the year refers to one of the first Soviet coins. One fifty dollars is quite common, as it has a large circulation and a number of varieties. On one side is a blacksmith with a working tool. On the other side is the state emblem of the USSR, the inscription under the emblem “one fifty thousand dollars” and the circular inscription “proletarians of all countries unite”. When stamping used a variety of stamps and gurtovye inscriptions. Therefore, some coins are unique.

There are 16 varieties of 50 kopecks 1924 of the year ... Minted coins in two places.

1. On the edge of the coin the letters PL are depicted - minted at the Leningrad Mint, PL - mintsmeister Peter Latyshev.

2. On the edge of the coin, the letters TR are depicted - coins were minted in England (Birmingham), TR - mintsmeister Thomas Ross. ”.

Proletarians were united on silver coins of the USSR, issued immediately after the civil war, in 1924 year. Issued at the Leningrad Mint and ... in England! That is, the proletariat released money in the most important capitalist state of that time.
But what about the principles? How is "the whole world of violence we destroy to the ground"?

Destroyed. By distemper and civil war destroyed the Russian empire, the main geopolitical opponent of the British Empire. The British liquidated their rivals by the hands of revolutionaries. Not only Russia, but also Germany, were erased with a “revolutionary eraser” from the world map.
And ardent freedom fighters continued to cooperate with their "patrons" already in peace life.

Are you surprised? In vain. Where will the Libyan and Syrian revolutionaries print and mint their money if they win? In London, in England. (Even the current Syrian money was printed in the UK. Colonial dependence is not a joke!)

So maybe in Russia in 1924, it was impossible to mint silver fifty dollars? Maybe in vain we sin on the "faithful Leninists"?
Not. Russia independently coped with the release of banknotes and coins. Tsarist Russia coped, and the Bolsheviks, as they won, stopped coping immediately?

So the Mint in the northern capital worked, but the “party and government” somehow ordered it to release less coins than the British “partners”: in St. Petersburg in 1924, 26 559 000 fifty-fifty was released, in Birmingham - 40 million pieces. http://savearmy.ru/50-kopeek-1924-goda/

Coins worth 50 kopecks minted in England today are distributed among coin collectors equally with coins issued by the Soviet proletarians themselves in St. Petersburg. Even judging by the fact that the cost of "English" coins on modern Internet auctions practically does not differ from the cost of fifty thousand rubles of domestic coinage, you can be sure that the circulation of the "English issue" was exactly the same.

My reader Sergey Gavrilov sent interesting information on this account:
“... It was supposed to place orders at other enterprises, in particular at the Tula and Odessa factories. But these proposals were not accepted. Orders for the minting of part of the circulation of fifty dollars and Pyataks placed in England ... ". (Shchekov AA Coins of the USSR: Catalog. - 2-e ed., Revised and enlarged. -M .: Finance and Statistics, 1989, p. 31).

This is the “dictatorship of the proletariat”. These are the "principled revolutionaries." They don’t give work to their proletarians; they don’t want to mint native Soviet coins in the country that won the exploitation of the people.

By the way, silver rubles were also minted in England, according to this link. http://www.tomovl.ru/money_poltinnik.html

(It’s not the fact of the release of certain USSR coins in England, but the very fact of such a situation. It’s very characteristic and indicative.)


Look at the coin. Everything is as it should be: the worker embraces the peasant and points to the rising sun of freedom.

Did freedom for Russian peasants and workers in the 1924 year soar up in the West? In London? For workers and peasants there is not, but for revolutionaries of all stripes it never entered London. All who struggle with Russia always know: from London, as from the Don - there is no issue.

And thieves flee, political adventurers and just oligarchs in Albion ...

... The reason for the release of Soviet money in England was political, not economic. There is no need to be surprised - Comrade Trotsky, a direct protege of the banking backstage by this time was the most influential politician in the USSR. Stalin was just beginning to fight with Trotsky, which would end with the expulsion of Lev Davydovich, first in Alma-Ata, and then outside the country in 1929. An amazing thing - at the same time, the government of the USSR stopped the work of all the concessions, which for a penny exported the resources of our people to the West.

The Soviet Union did not order more coins from the “British partners”.

... And we, after all, didn’t even now discuss where and to whom the “revolutionaries” sent gold and jewels immediately after October. Through the Swedish banker banker Olof Ashberg.


Which, after the final victory of the Bolsheviks (about a wonderful coincidence!), ... became the first Soviet banker. Olaf Aschberg headed the first commercial (!) Bank in a Soviet country - Russian Commercial Bank in 1921. You can read about it quite openly today on the VTB website, because VTB is the “heir” of the bank where Comrade Olaf Aschberg worked.

Do you still have questions, why was the revolution made?

And if those who made the 1917 revolution of the year, in many ways ideological people, were so closely connected with the bankers of London and Washington, then what can we think of those who are “fighting for freedom” today? And he walks quite openly at the US embassy, ​​openly receiving funding from Western funds ...
Author:
Originator:
http://nstarikov.ru/
44 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. kaktus
    kaktus 18 October 2013 09: 18
    +6
    Well, the farther the funnier ...
  2. alekseyal
    alekseyal 18 October 2013 09: 19
    +1
    Read the books of N. Starikov, he describes in detail there.
    Who and why finances the revolutionaries and any subversive elements in Russia.

    “Who finances the collapse of Russia. From Decembrists to Mujahideen "
    This book is for those who do not like the Russian government. For those who want to remove the "bloody", "rotten", "autocratic", "backward", "dictatorial", "gebist", "undemocratic" and even any regime in Russia.

    This book is for Russian patriots who want to never again allow the collapse of the country, the loss of territories, the destruction of our armed forces, chaos, civil war, loss of sovereignty and a catastrophic fall in living standards.
    http://nstarikov.ru/books/154

    "1917. The Solution to the Russian Revolution"
    The death of the Russian Empire in 1917 was not an accident, just as the Soviet Union did not accidentally crumble. In both cases, a powerful external force initiated the collapse of Russia, using scoundrels and fools who, for money or beautiful promises, eventually destroyed their own country.
    http://nstarikov.ru/books/167

    “Liquidation of Russia. Who helped the Reds win the Civil War? ”
    This book is about the events of the Civil War. Russian statehood, territorial integrity and the country's economy perished in its whirlwind. The Romanovs, the Russian fleet, the Russian army and millions of Russians were destroyed. The consequences of this terrible civil strife have largely not been eradicated to this day.
    http://nstarikov.ru/books/1914
  3. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 18 October 2013 09: 21
    +7
    He never "entered" what the author wanted to prove. The fact that the revolution in Russia in 17 was beneficial to the British and the proof of this was the printing of part of the money of Soviet Russia in this state? Well, well ... Then the question is: after the collapse of the USSR, all subsequent money was printed and printed in Russia, which means that we must conclude from this that neither the USA, nor England, nor the so-called. have the current Western "partners" not put their dirty hands to this collapse? Oh well. The author write ischo. Mine will read.
    1. washi
      washi 18 October 2013 17: 37
      +2
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      He never "entered" what the author wanted to prove. The fact that the revolution in Russia in 17 was beneficial to the British and the proof of this was the printing of part of the money of Soviet Russia in this state? Well, well ... Then the question is: after the collapse of the USSR, all subsequent money was printed and printed in Russia, which means that we must conclude from this that neither the USA, nor England, nor the so-called. have the current Western "partners" not put their dirty hands to this collapse? Oh well. The author write ischo. Mine will read.

      My stupid friend. Read the history of the CPSU. Where were the foreign congresses of the RDRSP. (by the way, the name does not resemble anything (NSDAP - National Socialist Workers Party)
      That's when the RSDLP was transformed into the CPSU (b), then the gap with the English went, on certain issues and among some leaders.
  4. Vadim2013
    Vadim2013 18 October 2013 11: 45
    +2
    In my opinion, the author of the article is wrong in asserting that "... those who made the 1917 revolution, in many ways ideological people, were so closely associated with the bankers of London and Washington ..."
    The Council of People's Commissars acted in the interests of socialist transformations in Russia. So the Brest peace was concluded with Germany in 1918 of England it was not profitable.
    1. Trapperxnumx
      Trapperxnumx 18 October 2013 15: 50
      +2
      Quote: Vadim2013
      it’s a series of economic ones (people need to eat), then political ones, and if there is this, an external factor comes into play.

      On the other hand, the destruction of Russia was beneficial to England, and in 1917 Russia’s withdrawal from the war had little effect, since Germany had already been exhausted this time, and the United States entered the war — these were two.
    2. Metlik
      Metlik 18 October 2013 16: 26
      +2
      Quote: Vadim2013
      The Council of People's Commissars acted in the interests of socialist transformations in Russia. So the Brest peace was concluded with Germany in 1918 of England it was not profitable.

      England is sleeping and sees how to cut borders so that there would be cause for conflict. It is advisable to carry them out, separating common peoples and faiths. Divide and rule.
    3. washi
      washi 18 October 2013 17: 29
      +2
      Quote: Vadim2013
      In my opinion, the author of the article is wrong in asserting that "... those who made the 1917 revolution, in many ways ideological people, were so closely associated with the bankers of London and Washington ..."
      The Council of People's Commissars acted in the interests of socialist transformations in Russia. So the Brest peace was concluded with Germany in 1918 of England it was not profitable.

      And do not remember whose expression was after the abdication of Nicholas 2: our goal in the war is achieved?
    4. Cpa
      Cpa 19 October 2013 04: 05
      0
      If Russia won the war, the country would have gained enormous territorial and economic advantages. It was just not suitable for England. It was necessary to urgently withdraw Russia from the war.
  5. New Russia
    New Russia 18 October 2013 12: 01
    +6
    "A revolution is not the result of a class struggle. A revolution is not an outburst of indignation when people's suffering has exceeded any measure. Revolutions are a way of destroying some states by others." Well, what are you Putin's regular propagandists all the time saying that the revolution is always in the interests of other countries and organized by other countries?) After all, judging by your propaganda words, Russia is flourishing (Hah)) Why are you all a revolution and a revolution?)

    You are mistaken propagandists. A revolution is when a people can no longer tolerate bullying and humiliation. The USSR did not collapse because the USA needed it and Humpback did a dirty job, the USSR collapsed because it could not live without the core of ideology, which Khrushchev began to destroy. An ideologically powerful USSR would never fall apart. Russia at the moment will not break out of the revolution if everything is as beautiful as you lie. There are objective reasons that I’m tired of listing, that in a revolutionary situation, the enemies of Russia are trying to turn things around in a different way. But inappropriately I bear that I began to hate power because the State Department washed my brain and not because of the morons in the Kremlin
    1. Starfish
      Starfish 18 October 2013 12: 18
      -1
      our power has been reborn before our eyes more than once.
      in the 90s from the Soviet to the oligarchic, then in the beginning of the 2000s it seemed to surrender a little back, and calmed down. reminds me of the situation with Brezhnev, having started quite well, how did he end? and now the situation is like in the last years of stagnation. corruption is growing and unbelief in power is growing.
      the guarantor did his job the guarantor must go
      1. washi
        washi 18 October 2013 17: 41
        -2
        Quote: Starfish
        our power has been reborn before our eyes more than once.
        in the 90s from the Soviet to the oligarchic, then in the beginning of the 2000s it seemed to surrender a little back, and calmed down. reminds me of the situation with Brezhnev, having started quite well, how did he end? and now the situation is like in the last years of stagnation. corruption is growing and unbelief in power is growing.
        the guarantor did his job the guarantor must go

        The guarantor stabilized the situation, preventing it from falling further
        The guarantor must act further and if you do not find a place in the new people's Socialist Russia, I'm sorry.
        1. New Russia
          New Russia 18 October 2013 17: 59
          +3
          "The guarantor must act further, and if there is no place for you in the new People's Socialist Russia" Will the Guarantor lead Russia to the People's Socialist Republic?)
        2. Yarosvet
          Yarosvet 18 October 2013 19: 19
          +1
          Quote: Vasya
          if you do not find a place in the new People's Socialist Russia, sorry.

          Nude ... laughing


    2. alekseyal
      alekseyal 18 October 2013 12: 56
      +1
      Who benefited from the 1917 revolution.
      In the first Soviet government, there were approximately 80-85% of Jews.
      This is a fact; I personally have nothing against them. Just a fact.
      1. New Russia
        New Russia 18 October 2013 13: 39
        +7
        Yes, this is a fact, but the revolution itself happened due to the fact that tsarism and Orthodoxy are rotten, people gladly went to burn churches. And the Jews were attached at the time. Indeed, in the 20s, we were openly incited to debauchery and homosexuality, there is evidence of this. If it were not for Stalin, it would be unknown what would have happened
    3. komissar
      komissar 18 October 2013 13: 24
      +3
      I agree with you 100%. In 1991, I, like everyone I knew, really wanted change, and I followed Yeltsin only because Gorbachev, with his chatter and the leaders of the USSR, who had turned into full impotent people, led the country into a dead end. But there were no foreign agents or those bought for currency among us.
  6. Ksenia_art
    Ksenia_art 18 October 2013 12: 33
    +1
    people, well, you read carefully before attacking and saying that the author is wrong! if you do not understand the first time - read it again!
    1. 505506
      505506 18 October 2013 13: 49
      +1
      And what did you see there that others did not see?
  7. AlexeyD
    AlexeyD 18 October 2013 12: 58
    +3
    All right, the author says. Of course, there are objective prerequisites, such as a spiritual core, etc.
    In no case do I defend the current government, but I, for one, am against the revolution, because it will always be paid from abroad. And whoever pays money orders music. Both revolutions (in the 17th and 90s) cost us millions of victims.
    Only a military coup can rely on their own forces. The army can change power in the interests of the people, but never a revolution.
    1. Doctorleg
      Doctorleg 18 October 2013 18: 38
      0
      Quote: AlexeyD
      All right, the author says. Of course, there are objective prerequisites, such as a spiritual core, etc.
      In no case do I defend the current government, but I, for one, am against the revolution, because it will always be paid from abroad. And whoever pays money orders music. Both revolutions (in the 17th and 90s) cost us millions of victims.
      Only a military coup can rely on their own forces. The army can change power in the interests of the people, but never a revolution.

      Do you mean Chile, Greece, Spain, Latin America? wink
  8. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 18 October 2013 13: 15
    +3
    As far as I remember, it was not the Communists who destroyed the Russian Empire, they are only a consequence and not a cause. Well, the fact that V.I. Lenin was a cunning figure is clear, he was looking for any opportunity, clinging to any chance, and the question was who he served? And did he serve anyone at all? He would have the opportunity to mint money in England, he would mint it there, he would have the opportunity to mint on the moon, and he would mint there.
    1. Yarosvet
      Yarosvet 18 October 2013 19: 24
      +2
      Quote: Standard Oil
      Well, the fact that V.I. Lenin was a cunning figure is clear.
  9. 505506
    505506 18 October 2013 14: 13
    0
    Unfortunately, the author uses only general theses, and to reveal their stupidity requires a reasoned answer, the size of his own article. Unfortunately, I now have neither reference books, nor even encyclopedias (even for children), and it’s a pity for the time. Just as a person with historical formations, I will say-Do not be lazy, read and see that the preconditions of every revolution, first of all, are economic (the people need to eat), then political, and if there is this, an external factor comes into play. , but a "well-fed" person, in the absence of "leaders", cannot be raised to revolution.
    As for money, by 1924, even the most stubborn people understood that it was impossible without them, and from England it was necessary to recognize the country of the Soviets, and the capitalist understood only the language of money. England recognized the USSR in 1921, at 24 it was fixed, and then like a snowball went recognition by other large cap. countries. For the same purpose (in part), NEP was introduced. Then, having received its own, and having linked the capitalists with economic interests, the USSR turned off these programs. But the author, trying to make himself a specialist (I apologize for the jargon) for pulling mde to his beard, just screwed up.
    1. AlexeyD
      AlexeyD 18 October 2013 15: 44
      0
      Quote: 505506
      If you don’t want it, you cannot raise a “well-fed” person in the absence of “leaders” for revolution.

      Even as you lift. Or did you forget the revolution of the early 90's? The people didn’t starve, but nevertheless went to the barricades both from that and from the other side. And those who are dissatisfied with anything can always be found in abundance.
      1. Doctorleg
        Doctorleg 18 October 2013 18: 42
        +2
        Quote: AlexeyD
        Quote: 505506
        If you don’t want it, you cannot raise a “well-fed” person in the absence of “leaders” for revolution.

        Even as you lift. Or did you forget the revolution of the early 90's? The people didn’t starve, but nevertheless went to the barricades both from that and from the other side. And those who are dissatisfied with anything can always be found in abundance.

        They didn’t die of hunger. But not with bread alone. In addition, few climbed the barricades.
  10. sub307
    sub307 18 October 2013 14: 16
    0
    I eat such coins in my "household".
    1. New Russia
      New Russia 18 October 2013 15: 13
      -2
      Wow, don't you sell?
      1. uzer 13
        uzer 13 18 October 2013 17: 22
        +1
        Look better for 2 kopecks of copper, rather than silver money of these years, search through your grandmother's chest. If you find, you have enough for the pins.
  11. kostik1301
    kostik1301 18 October 2013 14: 46
    +1
    Tell me what the author of this article wanted to say, everything is so muddy ...........
    1. New Russia
      New Russia 18 October 2013 15: 13
      +3
      All revolutions are made by the enemies of Russia and the State Department, people are happy with everything, endure, otherwise it will be worse. This)
  12. Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx 18 October 2013 15: 41
    +1
    Quote: New Russia
    All revolutions are made by the enemies of Russia and the State Department, people are happy with everything, endure, otherwise it will be worse. This)

    Tell us in which countries after the revolution has life become better?
    1. 505506
      505506 18 October 2013 15: 53
      0
      In France, while Napoleon climbed into Russia. In the Russian Empire (aka the RSFSR), in Germany, etc. etc. Or do you think that if the monarchy who ruled there remained there before the revolutions, then life there would be better? I don't mean life in the first year after. I say that radical changes have borne fruit. And time, from the point of view of history, has passed a little. Otherwise, according to the decree on "cook's children", you would either not have access to a computer, or would communicate (if you were a nobleman), talk only with your own kind (probably exciting). By the way, the current government in the Russian Federation is trying to revive this decree. See education reforms.
      1. AlexeyD
        AlexeyD 18 October 2013 16: 14
        +1
        Are you serious about the Russian Empire? Read historical materials about the dynamics of the development of Russia before the revolution. Russia was not a backward country. Do not make me laugh.
        1. Yarosvet
          Yarosvet 18 October 2013 19: 33
          +2
          Quote: AlexeyD
          Russia was not a backward country.

          What are the 5 digits:

          The average life expectancy in the midst of the aristocracy before the 17th revolution.

          The average life expectancy of a peasant before the revolution and in the late 20s.

          The number of literate people before the revolution and in the late 20s as a percentage of the population.
      2. Doctorleg
        Doctorleg 18 October 2013 18: 50
        0
        It was difficult to break through. But there were a sufficient number of immigrants from ordinary people (EMNIP - General Alekseev and a number of White Guards). Many merchants and entrepreneurs - a classic example - Eliseev - from serfs. But social elevators, as they say now, worked poorly. Exceptions only confirm the rule.
    2. New Russia
      New Russia 18 October 2013 16: 01
      +1
      There is a difference between countries where the population does not die out and is not replaced by barbarians with an open government policy, where it really can be worse, but when Russia in 20 30 years turns into Urusstan with its capital in Moskvabad where you can find out about Russians living in the museum of local lore, waiting from the power of the miracle of death is like. And it became better to live after the revolution in China, the USSR, the USA, Germany 30 x.
  13. w2000
    w2000 18 October 2013 16: 40
    -2
    What kind of custom-made scoundrel will not be written about the Soviet regime by the illiterate lackeys of the regime, like an old man.
  14. w2000
    w2000 18 October 2013 16: 44
    +1
    Quote: AlexeyD
    Are you serious about the Russian Empire? Read historical materials about the dynamics of the development of Russia before the revolution. Russia was not a backward country. Do not make me laugh.


    Was, was. The country of disenfranchised slaves, under the yoke of nobles, a bar and priests.
    1. AlexeyD
      AlexeyD 18 October 2013 16: 58
      +1
      At the same time, the nobles themselves (intelligentsia) themselves, basically, made this revolution. Does the brain crack from such a mismatch?
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 18 October 2013 17: 04
        +2
        Quote: AlexeyD
        the nobles themselves (intelligentsia) themselves, basically, made this revolution. Does the brain crack from such a mismatch?

        By no means, everything is just in the classical manner. Torquemada, the founder of the Spanish Inquisition, which had chased "Jewish sorcerers" across Europe for centuries, was ... a Jew. As well as 95% of the leadership of the GULAG system (those same persecutors of the Jewish people, denounced by Solzhenitsyn). So nothing really new ... request
      2. New Russia
        New Russia 18 October 2013 17: 11
        0
        "At the same time, the very same nobles (intelligentsia), basically, and made this revolution." The nobles did the February and not the October
        1. washi
          washi 18 October 2013 17: 54
          +4
          Quote: New Russia
          "At the same time, the very same nobles (intelligentsia), basically, and made this revolution." The nobles did the February and not the October

          What did February bring to?
          collapse of fronts
          education of the national republic
          destruction of central management
          financial crisis
          destruction of power state structures
          the growth of banditry.
          EVERYTHING as in 1991.
          The "revolution" of 1991 was also made by the "intelligentsia" and new "nobles" - the leadership of the CPSU, the Komsomol, Trade Unions and criminals.
          I hate those who call themselves the intelligentsia (creative class). These are really nations (Lenin).
          For development we need not stupid intelligentsia, but intellectuals
          1. New Russia
            New Russia 18 October 2013 18: 07
            -2
            February and those who wanted it should have led to a parliamentary republic, AlexeyD wanted to prove that the nobles did October, which means it was not popular, this is not true.
    2. Ksenia_art
      Ksenia_art 18 October 2013 20: 02
      +1
      if you forgot, then at the beginning of the 20th century, even under Emperor Nicholas 2, Russia is a very highly developed power! Russia has become a world power!
      but as you say that Russia was "a country of powerless slaves, under the yoke of nobles, bar and priests.", I remind you that the abolition of serfdom took place on February 19, 1861!
  15. w2000
    w2000 18 October 2013 20: 14
    -1
    Quote: Ksenia_Art
    but as you say that Russia was "a country of powerless slaves, under the yoke of nobles, bar and priests.", I remind you that the abolition of serfdom took place on February 19, 1861!


    This is de jure, and de facto peasants remained attached to the land of the land, remaining powerless slaves. Mass freedom and opportunities for ordinary people were discovered only by the Great October Socialist Revolution.
  16. wax
    wax 18 October 2013 23: 10
    -1
    So where does Starikov migrate in his views? In essence, all these superficial judgments are pseudo-analytics (analytics of a kindergarten kid). Not expected.
    1. Yarosvet
      Yarosvet 18 October 2013 23: 12
      +2
      Quote: Wax
      So where does Starikov migrate in his views?

      Here
  17. Yuri Y.
    Yuri Y. 19 October 2013 02: 20
    +2
    Quote: Monster_Fat
    He never "entered" what the author wanted to prove. The fact that the revolution in Russia in 17 was beneficial to the British and the proof of this was the printing of part of the money of Soviet Russia in this state? Oh well...

    I never "drove in", you wanted to say that it was not profitable for the British. Oh well...
    Quote: 505506
    For the same purpose (in part), NEP was introduced.

    As far as I remember, the NEP was motivated by the difficult economic situation. In part, this could be the reasons that are hinted at in the article. The admission of foreign capital in the form of concessions may be evidence of this point of view. Just no one expected the arrival of such a person as Stalin. The article does not speak about the causes of the revolution, but about who led it.
  18. Jellyfish
    Jellyfish 19 October 2013 03: 17
    +2
    So, by indirect evidence, the main participants in those events are revealed ....
    And yes, N. Starikov writes interesting things, I recommend reading it.
  19. Cpa
    Cpa 19 October 2013 04: 17
    +1
    Already wrote that now silver and gold commemorative coins dedicated to the history, sport, architecture in Russia (SBRF). minted on the territory of the British Empire.
  20. tanker75
    tanker75 19 October 2013 19: 22
    +1
    There are no inaccuracies -
    Coins were also minted under the kings abroad, starting in 1861, there were not a few precedents, not only minting was in London, but in Paris (*) and Belgium (**), well, in Japan, OSAKA in 1916, but here it’s understandable that there wasn’t enough power, and there they also took ammunition and weapons.
    Regarding TR and submarines, the author writes that there is no difference in price (respectively, in circulations), in fact, fifty dollars in 1922, in price have a direct dependence on submarines and TR, the price difference is about 50%, TR, in low circulation, more expensive.
  21. tanker75
    tanker75 19 October 2013 19: 24
    0
    In England, copper coins of the USSR were also minted, the price of which is an order of magnitude higher than domestic ones.
  22. I think so
    I think so 21 October 2013 22: 07
    +1
    The little thing is that shitty MINUS.