Questions about Baden coins [Risolto]

There are a few rather curious entries for Baden. First is this 1 Gulden, KM#236. The image and description are of KM#235, with the title given as "Prinz und Regent" rather than "Grosherzog". A correct image can be seen here. Does somone have an image of the correct coin to replace the current one?
The second is this ½ Gulden, KM#234. The description matches what's in SCWC, with dates of 1856 and 1860. What's curious is that Friedrich stopped being regent and became grand duke in 1856, so why would he have issued coins four years later with his old titles on? This site lists the 1860 date but has no image. Can anyone confirm that this date exists? The mintage of 342,000 comes from SCWC but is shared with KM#243 (although this is not shown on Numista).
The last is this ½ Gulden, KM#233. According to SCWC, this was only struck in 1856 but we also have 1860 listed. My copy of SCWC doen't state whether it has "Prinz und Regent" or "Grosherzog" on it but our image shows "Grosherzog", which is not unreasonable. Can the 1860 date be confirmed? If so, how is it different from that date of KM#243?

Messaged referee, this is weird. :)

Hello,

 

thanks for reporting this, I will process these one by one.

 

1.

KM236 is fixed now. Sorry not sure what I did there as that seem to have been put in from me.

N#64032

 

2.

KM 234 seems to be an error from Krause which was just copied here, even if two users marked as owning this 1860 year line.

All coins I can find from 1860 have the title as GROSHERZOG 

This can only be done through the moderators so I have requested this to be corrected.

 

3.

To your last point the only difference visible to me between KM 233 and KM 243 is that KM 233 has a signature VOIGT under the bust while the other does not.

I will add this detail on the coin sheets to make the difference clearer.

Quite a small difference for a different KM but sometimes Krause works in mysterious ways 😄

Many thanks. I think 1 and 2 are fine. For the last query, do we think the Voigt type P#233 exists dated 1860? Is this now listed in SCWC? My own copy is quite old.

yes it does seem to exist in dated 1860 with signature

KM233

That seals it then. Thanks again.

And here KM 243 dated 1860 without the signature

I just managed to get hold of the KM#243. This led me to question having two separate pages with such a small difference (only extra signature).

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces312467.html

N#64031

 

With the new option to add separate KM numbers per line, we should consider merging both pages (and reusing the pictures in the example section). 

 

Bump to referee @silvergeek 

The legend is also totally different.

apuking

The legend is also totally different.

Indeed 😑

 

Please just ignore my suggestion … 🙄

apuking

The legend is also totally different.

found my error, I sent wrong links … these are the two I was thinking about:

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces312467.html

N#29004

 

worth merging? with 1860 then having 2 varieties

This was one of my original points, so thanks for restarting this as I thought it had been accepted. We need separate year lines for 1860 with and without the signature but I see no point in maintaining the split.

I have asked for the creation of 2 new yearlines on N#29004

 

Once done, can the owners of coins on https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces312467.html be moved to that page and then delete this page (page pictures have been downloaded to be added as example once new yearlines have been approved)

 

Edit: changes have been approved, please move members and delete second page.

Done :)