Netherlands East Indies: 2 1/2 cent, km308.1 versus km808.2 [solved]

N#12708

The numista catalog does not correspond to anything, so we're trying to align at least the coins which were struck under two different rulers and have different km# in SCWC.

Before making any change requests (CR), I would like to hear your comments to these suggestions:

Ole

Hi

I wouldn't say “there are 2 types", I'd say ”KM codes are split by rulers" or something like that :-)

To be noted: privy marks cannot just be added by a classical CR; we need first to add each one in the DB like we did here: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic136317.html

we still miss the sword in this example; other will appear automatticcally as soon as they're attached correctly to yearlines

I’m thinking this in the Comment section:

KM# 307.1: sword privy mark low, left side of heraldic; William III ruler
KM# 307.2: halberd privy mark low, left side of heraldic; Wilhelmina ruler

rsirian1

I’m thinking this in the Comment section:

 

KM# 307.1: sword privy mark low, left side of heraldic; William III ruler
KM# 307.2: halberd privy mark low, left side of heraldic; Wilhelmina ruler

I feel the different privy marks are already explained in yearlines, right? It appears KM created a subnumber “just” for the ruler

Compendium

rsirian1

I’m thinking this in the Comment section:

 

KM# 307.1: sword privy mark low, left side of heraldic; William III ruler
KM# 307.2: halberd privy mark low, left side of heraldic; Wilhelmina ruler

I feel the different privy marks are already explained in yearlines, right? It appears KM created a subnumber “just” for the ruler

here they are

Sjoelund

Compendium

rsirian1

I’m thinking this in the Comment section:

 

KM# 307.1: sword privy mark low, left side of heraldic; William III ruler
KM# 307.2: halberd privy mark low, left side of heraldic; Wilhelmina ruler

I feel the different privy marks are already explained in yearlines, right? It appears KM created a subnumber “just” for the ruler

here they are

really sorry but I'm not a wizard, I cannot make beautiful SVG files from these… We either need someone to redraw them, or to find a higher resolution existing drawing that I could convert, like we did here: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic136317.html

Yes, that's what they started out on…

Try to ask https://en.numista.com/echanges/profil.php?id=15786 arnoV, if he has access to better images?

Sjoelund

Try to ask https://en.numista.com/echanges/profil.php?id=15786 arnoV, if he has access to better images?

Please point him there :-)

Oh boy, I just did, but that doesn't mean he can help you. I'm just a member here, and you're much higher and better placed to argue with eventual partners. 

Sjoelund

Oh boy, I just did, but that doesn't mean he can help you. I'm just a member here, and you're much higher and better placed to argue with eventual partners. 

Not at all! I'm just a database stewart, Numista lives on all its contributors :-)

I'm spending too much of my retired time to try to put Numista on a certain level, instead of just entering my “new” coins into a database filled with errors, which I discover along the entering process. Try to be positive and accept the critics and try to speed things up. I can live without umpty languages in numista, not bringing more numismatic knowledge into the community, which is now split up in language groups to isolate people with the same interest from other people with the same interest! Language barriers it's called, artificially created for what ever reason. Numista will be the FIRST multilingual numismatic site, and then the SINNFLUT.

I've tried to add the mint mark and the privy marks as they should be:

we cannot yet add mintmarks to yearlines, sorry. Xavier has that in his todo list

I understand that. So we will need to redo the CR later or how?

Sjoelund

I understand that. So we will need to redo the CR later or how?

Yes exactly! You already can request the adddition of privy marks when they already are selectable but not yet attached to all correct yearlines :-)

Sorry, maybe I don't get something, but why this request ?

Mark for mint master until 1874 for the coin dated 1897 ? In pictures here https://en.ucoin.net/coin/netherlands_east_indies-2-1-2-cents-1897/?cid=64985 I see halberd, not axe

You got it right, it should be the HALBERD of course, sorry

So should 1896.

rsirian1

So should 1896.

Corrected, Sjoelund will you cancel you requests or should I reject them ?

Oh, It goes on, 

I'll check tomorrow, why that went wrong?

ArsenEverlast

rsirian1

So should 1896.

Corrected, Sjoelund will you cancel you requests or should I reject them ?

I'll cancel, and try to find out what went wrong, thanks.

I’m thinking this in the Comment section:

KM# 307.1: sword privy mark low, left side of

heraldic; William III ruler
KM# 307.2: halberd privy mark low, left side of heraldic; Wilhelmina ruler

The rulers are important, the privy marks are just a coincidence since they are not at all linked to the dates of the rulers.

Sjoelund

The rulers are important, the privy marks are just a coincidence since they are not at all linked to the dates of the rulers.

But if rulers change do not imply anything visible on the coin itself, it should not create a type code. 

Compendium

Sjoelund

The rulers are important, the privy marks are just a coincidence since they are not at all linked to the dates of the rulers.

But if rulers change do not imply anything visible on the coin itself, it should not create a type code. 

I was NOT a decider in the KM redaction, so I just follow the decisions made by SCWC, as should Numista, being a 99,9% copy of the Krause catalogs. Try to take a look at the series ½, 1, 2 ½ cents and the 1/10, 1/4 gulden from the same period, and you'll see, that KM was not even agreeing with itself😁