NetherlandsEast Indies: 1 cent 1856, km307.1 versus km307.2?

N#7254

Numista and SCWC again are not agreeing, but for once I think Numista is right! As usual it all started with a coin received in a swap (1 cent 1856, km307.1). I found it easily in Numista and saw that it also existed as a km307.2. I then looked the coin up in SCWC and found that the two KM# never overlaps in a year, which is completely against the reality, as shown in the following documentation of the 1856 variants:

SCWC has the privy marks right, the legends descriptions are not correct and the years not at all (only 1855 is always307.1 and 1856 can be either 307.1 or 307.2).

Shall I make a CR to add this to numista?

I am completely confused.

1. The "km307.2" in your graphic looks like 1896.

2. There was 36 years and a change of ruler between the design change (as shown in SCWC). Why would they made a “new” design coin 40 years before it came out?

3. This is the one that really boggles my mind: NGC has KM307.2 years as being 1856 to 1860 (1856 proof only) and another KM307.2 with years 1896-1912 (separate pages):

https://www.ngccoin.com/price-guide/world/netherlands-east-indies-cent-km-307.2-1856-1860-cuid-57211-duid-154902

https://www.ngccoin.com/price-guide/world/netherlands-east-indies-cent-km-307.2-1896-1912-cuid-1092502-duid-1443275

I have 8th edition SCWC.  Whats yours?

For what it's worth I downloaded these from NGC.  Maybe it helps.  Maybe not.

rsirian1

I am completely confused.

 

1. The "km307.2" in your graphic looks like 1896.

2. There was 36 years and a change of ruler between the design change (as shown in SCWC). Why would they made a “new” design coin 40 years before it came out?

3. This is the one that really boggles my mind: NGC has KM307.2 years as being 1856 to 1860 and another KM307.2 with years 1896-1912 (separate pages):

https://www.ngccoin.com/price-guide/world/n. netherlands-east-indies-cent-km-307.2-1856-1860-cuid-57211-duid-154902

https://www.ngccoin.com/price-guide/world/netherlands-east-indies-cent-km-307.2-1896-1912-cuid-1092502-duid-1443275

 

I have 8th edition SCWC.  Whats yours?

I understand you're confused.

1. It is a 1896, sorry about that!

2. no clue, and I have no coins proving my case because of my error 1 point 1.

3.a the first link (NGC) definitely shows a 307.1 with a sword, not 307.2. 

3.b the second link shows a beautiful 307.2 with a helbard (the legend is much longer than the 1896 one)

I also have the 8th edition.

It looks like:

1. SCWC is right except about the legends

2. Numista is wrong 1855-1860 are all 307.1

3. Numista is wrong 1896-1912 are all 307.2

3. NGC has got their KM# wrong

4. My documentation is wrong and of no use as is, but I have the km307.1 and the the km307.2 coins in my collection, so I can set up a documentation based on those? I'll do that and come back.

Add pics from NGC.  I cannot see a difference between an NGC km307.1 1856 and an NGC km307.2 1856.  Can you?

No, I can't, NGC obviously believed NUMISTA was right, and still they don't allow us to use their images, but they use our data!

I'm going to make images of my 8 307 coins now. will be back with my findings, if any.

What I think is that SCWC didn't want to use the same KM number with that 36 year break in production and new ruler so they split into .1 (William III) and .2 (Wilhelminia) even without any major change in design.  Different numbers by privy mark only.  Maybe we're trying to find differences that aren't really there?

I also think NGC just messed up with the 307.2 1856-1860.

So…my opinion…split 307.1 and 307.2 by privy mark only.  I doubt you'll find a 1856 with halberd mark.

Sjoelund

 

It looks like:

1. SCWC is right except about the legends

2. Numista is wrong 1855-1860 are all 307.1

3. Numista is wrong 1896-1912 are all 307.2

3. NGC has got their KM# wrong

4. My documentation is wrong and of no use as is, but I have the km307.1 and the the km307.2 coins in my collection, so I can set up a documentation based on those? I'll do that and come back.

 

 

 

 

Agree on all 5 points.

Here are the images of my coins, 1860 is from Numista,, no analysis done so far!

At a first view, I don't think the legend is a good indicator, the privy mark yess.

Sjoelund

 

At a first view, I don't think the legend is a good indicator, the privy mark yess.

Agree 100%.  The trouble now is how to delete two 1856 year lines and move members.  Changing the other year line comments and Comment section isn't hard.

I don't think we will have a problem with that since we only have to add the members from the two 1856 lines into the only proper year line of 1856. The rest of the lines will only be subject to a change of the KM#? Do you take that in hand? I'll submit my graphique, OK?

Yes, I will.  Tomorrow. Off to work now.  

Thanks

For Dutch and colonial Dutch coins, it is currently not the practice to assign sub-KM numbers for different privy marks, not even for different mint marks.

Why should we do it for this case?

The km sub numbers HAVE BEEN assigned by the powers of Krause & Mischler, so they are there and thus used by numista. We want the numista catalog to correct and nothing else. No creation of new numbers, but application of the proper numbers for the given years.

Here is my newest documentation, based on the above discussions and also on Mr. Paul Bakers advice to look into older versions of the SCWC.

Here you can see the difference between the edition 7 and 8:

Those edition 7 legend descriptions are not the full truth either:

I hope everything is clear by now?

Ole

So…near as I can tell SCWC went through a “correction” from the 7th to the 8th edition.  Numista is still aligned (mostly) with the 7th edition.  Numista should be corrected to the 8th edition as we already suggested.

In the end, the .1 and .2 (while also coinciding with the privy mark) was mainly due to the 36 year separation and different ruler between them.  

Agreed?

Agreed.

Some more information from an edition of the SCWC BEFORE from the 6th edition, I just got it from a Dutch friend.

Seems to be the basis of the Numista entrances!

Sjoelund

Some more information from an edition of the SCWC BEFORE from the 6th edition, I just got it from a Dutch friend.

 

 

Seems to be the basis of the Numista entrances!

Looks to be the same as the 7th edition.  What I didn't notice before is that in the 7th (and 6th) edition the ruler for both the 307.1 and 307.2 was William III which obviously wasn't completely correct for 307.2.  The major change found in the 8th edition is the separation of the type by ruler with the addition of Wilhelmina for 307.2.  So my earlier statement about SCWC being revised based on ruler and not design seems to be correct.

The CR has been made, I even managed to add the swords……