Prussia - pfennige. Same types different numbers in SCWC

Started by natko, July 17, 2013, 12:16:43 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

natko

Thought that this contribution might be helpful to type collectors on this forum and eventually, as a correction to SCWC.

Due to listings by ruler numbers were assigned differently.

I checked non visual details such as weight, edge type and diameter from my collection, others, numerous sellers, auctions sites and only at the end the catalogs who sometimes were misleading. Unfortunately I don't have AKS but I bet it won't show annomalies.

First we have 1840 crown change, so coins minted 1821-1842 can be considered one type.
1 pf KM#405=430
2 pf KM#406=431
3 pf KM#407=432
4 pf KM#408=433=412, where this 412 has been assigned to mint D, copy of older C#

Then, after New Year of 1861, Friedrich Wilhelm IV died, leaving throne to his brother. Coins from 1846-1873 are absolutely the same, aside year and mint mark.
1 pf KM#451=480
2 pf KM#452=481
3 pf KM#453=482
4 pf KM#454=483

Now, 2011 Krause catalog of German coins shows weights as well which confirms my info gathered. But also shows peculiar change of standard starting with 1857 coins. They were reportedly made lighter for between 1,4 and 2%, (0.02-0.09g) which (if true anyway) is not measurable, as falls even into nowadays variation of +-5% in weight. In any case, seemed like a good reason for adding subtypes as KM#451a etc.

If I'm not wrong (and you're here to correct me then) there are 13 types and subtypes that are redundant.

BTW if somebody got for sale 3 pfennige 1850A (not pfenniNge, a muled one) in f. vz or better to complete my coppers of Prussia feel free to drop me a pm. ;D

Figleaf

This is one of the major inconsistencies in KM. In some country chapters, coins are listed by type, even when issued by different rulers, in other chapters they are listed by ruler. There are probably historical reasons for that: a major specialised catalogue lists them by ruler, the contributor lists them by ruler, KM lists them by ruler.

My take is that it is up to the collector to decide on this, so KM should have some indication when a type straddles rules, but it does seem more elegant and efficient to list coins by type, so that type collectors do not need to search frantically for differences that aren't there.

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

natko

Sure, we discussed that already. German states have ton of these cases, but also some (sub)types that are not separated (Hamburg 1837 and 1840 issues or something like that, not sure). Some cases in Italian states have different numbers for the very same ruler also from some reason from the old catalogs, but many were corrected before switching to KM#.

Anyhow, once when pointed out, any type collector will be more careful on these states.

Of course, it's up to a collector what to collect, but I agree with you on what would be more elegant. Especially as the same criteria should be taken worldwide. As always pointed out this is a huge catalog, that's why contributing is crucial, but supervising corrections with grain of salt sometimes seems to be omitted. (double entries, awful corrections etc)