1/24 thaler from Elbing (Gustav Adolf) split/adjust

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces63488.html

There are a lot of coin types in this page. In Krause there are three numbers for them:

KM# 11: city issue (CIVI ELB), 1628-1632
KM# 41: royal issue (REG SVE), 1632-1635
KM# 42: royal issue (REG SVE), 1632 with error 60 instead of 24 in orb

No date variant absent in Krause. In Kopicki it has CIVI ELB. But I have a coin with seemingly no date (not sure, it may be just damaged) and REG SVE:



I think that at least city issues and royal issues should be splitted because they have different text on revers (MON NO CIVI ELB and MON NO REG SVE). KM# 41 and KM# 42 can be joined, because it looks that 42 is just an error variant of 41.

There are also some other variants exists, absent in Kopicki, e.g. 1930 with very huge numbers 30, 1931 with EL instead of ELB, different marks near cross (+, x, *) and in different position, lines instead of dots inside the orb etc. But I'm not sure they should have separate lines in the list.

I have a catalog with 70 variants of these Gustav Adolf Elbing coins: Nechytailo V., "Catalog of XVII century 1/24 thalers minted in Rzeczpospolita and connected territories" (in Ukrainian), 2016, but also have some variants that absent there. Also there is exist a detailed catalog "Corpus Nummorum Civitatis Elbingensis" by Jarosław Dutkowski and Adam Suchanek, 2006, but I don't have this one.

*

Other problem is two <unknown type> lines in top of Numista page list. What does this mean? If this is supposed for coins in bad condition, than there should be one unknown type. What differences are between these two unknown types?

Hello,

We should not split on grounds that they have differences in text - that would create a lot of unnecessary pages. However, in this case, it is more important, because civic and royal issues are something more. I fixed uknown types in the meantime.

Cita: "Jarcek"​We should not split on grounds that they have differences in text.

​https://en.numista.com/numisdoc/articles/catalogue_guidelines.php#varieties_variations

​​​​​​In the guidelines: different legends should be split. But not different abbreviations or punctuations of the same legend.

That is what I meant, I was still partially asleep.

Edit: The OPs coin has a date which has been weakly struck and/or badly worn. This is clear in the photos.

The ruling authority is unchanged. Only the legend has changed.

All of these coins are Swedish occupation of Elbing. Coat of arms is unchanged, and relates to Swedish and Vasa family emblems. The city of Elbing arms are quite different from anything seen on these coins (and are present on some other denominations during the Swedish occupation), so I have trouble with the civic vs royal issues argument.

Edit: At most, it could be split in two types based on the change in legends, if this is consistent with Numista policy.

I would argue instead that the 1 grosz 1629-1630 could be collapsed to a single listing:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces96614.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces96612.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces96615.html