France: 50 centimes km914.1 versus km914.4

N#18131

Did anybody ever measure the thicknesses of the thick and the thin flan? The documentation on the page is only visual… 

I measured KM# 914.1 and KM 914.2 and got the same thicknesses as on the Numista pages. I don't have a Paris KM# 914.4.

I do find the thickness of km914.1:

but I cannot search and find 914.2, 914.3 nor 914.4:

When I search km914, do find them, how stupid is that (CR made)

It's the same old battle discussion about not including the sub-numbers in the references.

I know, I know, but it's still irritating. At least we've got enough space to add all the correct numbers now.

The question I have is why did SCWC issue sub-numbers for only a mint mark difference?

For France that's general. For Germany not so.

That's how the French catalog was?

No the catalog had the mints one ater the other

French has different sub numbers for year and mint. I guess we'll never know.

I heard a long time ago in the early days of KM, that the contributors were the kings. Obviously the French must have been Louis XIV……

rsirian1

The question I have is why did SCWC issue sub-numbers for only a mint mark difference?

My guess is that it allowed them to organize the catalog better with there being a huge number of mints before the revolution, then they kept it afterwards for the sake of consistency. They do the same with 1800s Mexican mints.

Haha. So now, after looking at SCWC I have more questions which is probably what you started out on.  Here is the SCWC breakdown:

KM# 914.1  Paris 1942, 1943, 1944  Thick flan

KM# 914.2 Beaumont 1943, 1944

KM# 914.3 Castelsarrasin 1944

KM# 914.4 Paris 1942, 1943 (1944 Numista) Thin flan

Bold are differences between SCWC and Numista.

So is there a Paris 1944 thick flan and a Paris 1942 thin flan?

TheGame

rsirian1

The question I have is why did SCWC issue sub-numbers for only a mint mark difference?

My guess is that it allowed them to organize the catalog better with there being a huge number of mints before the revolution, then they kept it afterwards for the sake of consistency. They do the same with 1800s Mexican mints.

Maybe so. Thanks.

Yes. I just wanted to know the objective difference between the thin and the fat flan…

I got fluttered because of not appearing of wanted km numbers.  Thanks to numistas “groupings”.

Actually I have them both in my collection. I was checking in incoming swap coin

 It was evidently wrongly placed in the year line. Ni modo!

Let's talk only the Paris coins, KM914.1 and KM914.4.

1. Is there a 1944 KM914.1 (thick flan)? SCWC-yes, Numista-no.

2. Is there a 1942 KM914.4 (thin flan)?  SCWC-yes, Numista-no.

3. Is there a 1944 KM914.4 (thin flan)? SCWC-no, Numista-yes.

When I get a chance I'll search the forums to see if this has been discussed before.

https://en.numista.com/forum/topic93438.html

https://fr.numista.com/forum/topic51508.html

After reading these it's clear as mud.