News:

Sign up for the monthly zoom events by sending a PM with your email address to Hitesh

Main Menu

Peru 5 centavos 1951

Started by FosseWay, August 27, 2012, 12:56:06 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

FosseWay

I've recently acquired one of these but can't tell whether it's KM 223.4 or 223.2 as I don't have another to compare thickness with. Mine isn't the variant with a dot in the middle of the date, but it could be thick or thin. Can anyone tell me what each variety should weigh? Mine is 3 g precisely.

(On a side note, this identification problem exemplifies one of my biggest gripes with KM: the fact that it very rarely gives weights for base metal coinage. I'm not specially interested in how many grams of silver a given coin contains, which information is given with almost religious precision for virtually all silver coins, whereas the total weight of many coins, regardless of metal, is often a significant aid to attribution. Even from a purely value-related perspective this can be important, as here, where the 'thick' variant is worth 10 times the 'thin', apparently.)

Figleaf

Mine (1960) is 1.8 grams.

KM is US-centered. The general feeling there is that if the coin cannot be sold at metal value, it is OK to have it melted. Investor attitude trumps collector attitude. In all fairness, I do see more and more total weights included. Problem is that some contributors will give observed weight, rather than official weight, so progress is slow.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

FosseWay

Aha, thanks. It looks like mine is the 'valuable' version (i.e. $1 rather than 10c  ;D). The lack of weight (and often diameter) in KM is one of the reasons why I've been building up my own database of such information (8000-odd distinct types so far). But as you say, the info I have is arrived at by putting the coin I happen to possess on a set of scales and reading the resulting weight -- it's not the official issue weight.

Harald

Quote from: FosseWay on August 27, 2012, 12:56:06 PM
On a side note, this identification problem exemplifies one of my biggest gripes with KM: the fact that it very rarely gives weights for base metal coinage. I'm not specially interested in how many grams of silver a given coin contains, which information is given with almost religious precision for virtually all silver coins, whereas the total weight of many coins, regardless of metal, is often a significant aid to attribution. Even from a purely value-related perspective this can be important, as here, where the 'thick' variant is worth 10 times the 'thin', apparently.)

Just to put it right, the weight is given with legal precision, not religious  ;D
In the early days the laws and decrees have specified how much money had to be coined out of an amount of bullion. Frequently the amount of alloy was not
even specified. That was something for the mintmaster.

cheers
--
Harald
http://www.liganda.ch (monetary history & numismatic linguistics)

Figleaf

That differs from one country to another. German regulations for instance give considerably more freedom to minters than French regulations, which tend to mention weight, diameter, alloy and remedy. Dutch regulations more often specify only weight, alloy and remedy.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

FosseWay

The vast majority of the coins I deal with are either in base metal or are token silver issues. In either case they are generally minted to very precise standards of weight, composition and dimensions, which data are likely to be specified in law somewhere. I concede that obtaining that information from each issuing authority would be a major undertaking for Krause Publications or anyone else, but simply weighing and measuring the diameter of a standard example of a given coin in as close to Unc as is practical would give enough information for most collectors' purposes and would certainly be better than nothing at all.

translateltd

Quote from: Figleaf on August 27, 2012, 03:52:53 PM

In all fairness, I do see more and more total weights included. Problem is that some contributors will give observed weight, rather than official weight, so progress is slow.


I know that they have one contributor (not me) whose collecting ambit rivals Figleaf's, who is slowly working through his collection and supplying all observed weights to SCWC.  That may be the source of the gradually increasing store of published info.

Globetrotter

I used to be a contributor to SCWC exactly for the purpose of supplying KM with measurements and images and new info about variants. I went on with that until August 2020! I stopped since not even Tom communicated anymore.....

Globetrotter

A documentation of the difference between the two km#