Correct date for Saxe-Meiningen KM#120 [Risolto]

According to SCWC, this coin is dated 1829, as can be seen here, not 1828 as we have. Can the date please be changed?

Many thanks. In that case, we're missing KM#125 and we need a better image for KM#120.

Agree. Can't use the one I posted. It's NGC.

Yes, there's a few other Saxe-Meiningen coins that need adding but I'm struggling with images for them too. I guess we add the coins, then hope somone has a picture. For KM#120, a comment on the difference between it and KM#125 would help a lot.

SCWC seems to imply the Obverse legend is different but I don't see that on the 1829 one you posted.

Good spot! Perhaps we add a yearline for 1829 to KM#120 based on the images we have (we could include a link in the comments) and then see if anyone can find the 1829 “MEINIGEN” variety?

Sounds like a plan.  Looking at these from Ma Shops the difference may be just the design size/layout?

That does look plausible. KM#119 is different again. I wonder then if our image for KM#120 is actually dated 1829?

Maybe.  The size of the ¼ seems closer to the picture of the 1829.  But, we don't know how many different varieties of either exist.  

rsirian1

Maybe.  The size of the ¼ seems closer to the picture of the 1829.  But, we don't know how many different varieties of either exist.  

My conclusion the last time I reviewed coin images was that the size of the ¼ didn't correlate well with Krause types.

So …

Krause has KM#120 as 1828, and we currently have our listing for KM#120 with date line 1828 and image showing the date 1828.

So, on KM#120, it looks like we are OK?  

Not sure it makes sense to add a year line when Krause doesn;t have one, though I guess our Germany referee can decide (and I agree a comment on differences between 119, 120 and 125 in each listing could be very helpful).

It looks like KM#119 is distinguished by a legend that is only separated by the crown, whereas KM120/125 have the legend only covering half the circumference? 

tdziemia

So …

Krause has KM#120 as 1828, and we currently have our listing for KM#120 with date line 1828 and image showing the date 1828.

So, on KM#120, it looks like we are OK?  

Not sure it makes sense to add a year line when Krause doesn;t have one, though I guess our Germany referee can decide (and I agree a comment on differences between 119, 120 and 125 in each listing could be very helpful).

It looks like KM#119 is distinguished by a legend that is only separated by the crown, whereas KM120/125 have the legend only covering half the circumference? 

I'm not convinced the image we have is dated 1828. The last digit is simply too indistinct to be sure and the obverse matches coins dated 1829. If that is an 1828, then the 1829 date certainly exists, as demonstrated by the images. I agree that KM#119 is distinct as you describe but I question the KM#125 “MEINIGEN” variety's existence until we have an image.

Here's one I found on Ebay identified as KM# 120.

seems to be a closer match to the Ma-shops one than the one in Numista, but for sure an 1828 does exist.  

So, it's begining to look like there are two types, one for 1828 and one for 1829, but the difference isn't “MEININGEN” vs. “MEINIGEN”, rather it's the size of the fraction (small in 1828, large in 1829) and how far around the shield the text goes (long in 1828, short in 1829). Can we call these KM#120 and KM#125? As long as we explain what we've done, I think that's acceptable.

Except this one in SCWC for KM# 120 doesn't fit for the obverse:

Just made a creation request for the KM# 125 with MEINIGEN, with pictures:

Working on the others too. KM# 120 exists with both date 1828 and 1829 with several varieties. Pictures are following.

By the way, I have no information about weight and diameter for the KM# 125 but if anyone has the AKS catalog (Arnold, Küthmann, Steinhilber, 2022) that information is maybe there.

Essor Prof

Just made a creation request for the KM# 125 with MEINIGEN, with pictures:

 

 

Working on the others too. KM# 120 exists with both date 1828 and 1829 with several varieties. Pictures are following.

Wonderful, many thanks.

ceh2019

 

I'm not convinced the image we have is dated 1828. The last digit is simply too indistinct.

I'm pretty sure it's 1828:

The lower red arrow shows the left lower part of an 8 which a 9 doesn't have and the upper red arrow shows the upper hole is the widest horizontally while the upper hole of a 9 on these coins is the widest vertically:

But it doesn't matter. I'll provide much better pictures very soon.

Essor Prof

 

 

But it doesn't matter. I'll provide much better pictures very soon.

Excellent! Thanks for setting us straight.

It took some time but here are the pictures for KM# 120. Change request is made but we'll have to see what will be accepted.

Varieties 1828:

Reverse without dot after date:

Reverse with dot after date:

Reverse with low dot after legend:

Denomination with latin 1 and closed 4, large reverse legend,  obverse legend with points:

Denomination with latin 1 and closed 4, small reverse legend,  obverse legend with colons:

Varieties 1929:

Small obverse legend with points: 

Large obverse legend with colons:

Kudos to all for the collaboration on this.

If I understand your conclusions (and actions) correctly:  

- You believe 1829 date line should be added to KM#120 because there are examples dated 1829 with MEININGEN.  This request has been submitted, as well as photos of varieties for the Comments section.

- A new listing has been submitted for KM#125 covering only 1829 with spelling MEINIGEN.

Is that right?

That sums it up for me. The different fraction sizes are very distinct and could easily be the basis for separate entries but, with the fantastic documentation, we can let this sink in first.

The referee started accepting my requests late yesterday evening, so I have good hope he will accept them all:

It looks like the KM#120 modifications are in place, but we still await addition/approval of the KM#125.  

Will keep this open until that's also done.

tdziemia

It looks like the KM#120 modifications are in place, but we still await addition/approval of the KM#125.  

The referee rejected the creation request of the KM# 125, saying it's the same coin as the KM# 120:

Krause says the difference between KM# 125 and KM# 120 is in the legend: MEININGEN versus MEINIGEN. 

So I've asked the referee to reconsider his decision. So we have to wait for his reaction, maybe he has more information about the KM# 125.

It might be considered a variety of KM# 120 but there can't be any doubt that there is a KM# 125. The picture you posted proves that. So the only other alternative is to add KM# 125 as a reference on the existing KM# 120 page except once that is done the normal thing to do is split the pages.

Yes, that would have been my next step if he stays with the rejection. Although I don't like having two different KM# reference numbers on 1 coin page.

I agree. My main point was that doing that was not the proper way so the only way the referee could not approve is to deny that KM# 125 exists. Perhaps just go straight to an Appeal?

I don't like going over one's head, so I await his reaction first.

Essor Prof

I don't like going over one's head, so I await his reaction first.

When @Jarcek deals with appeals, he always begin to talk with the referee, so I reassure you its not about going over @escoins head :-)

I would like to clarify - not always. Sometimes referees contact me first, sometimes the issue is resolved before I reach an appeal or the appeal does not need any change at all. And I also do not notify when I uphold referee choice of action.

Dear all, 

I would like to try to explain my rejection decision here. 

Over the course of many years, I have found that KM is not always reliable and consistent, at least for German coins. Often completely different types are combined to form one number or, conversely, new numbers are created because of a small details of one type. That's why I primarily trust reference works that were created by experts specifically for a specific German area. For me, KM is therefore only a “second line”.
Neither Ludwig Grobe (forefather of the Saxe-Meiningen numismatic), nor AKS, nor Jaeger distinguish between "MEININGEN" and "MEINIGEN" in their catalogs. (Grobe # 251, AKS # 210, Jaeger # 413) They only state that there are different variants in legends, weight and diameter. In the Merseburger collection, too, all versions and years of this type are combined into one number (# 3482). It is incomprehensible to me why KM has provided three different numbers for this coin.
It is also common on Numista for subtle differences in a type to be listed as variants in the year lines or in the comment field. I'd like to avoid having to create a new page for every little detail (even though KM did so in this case).
The variant "MEINIGEN" shown above was auctioned by the auction house "HEIDELBERGER MÜNZHANDLUNG HERBERT GRÜN" on November 15, 2011. There as AKS# 210 / Jaeger# 413.
So I am still of the opinion that we should consider KM 120 and 125 as variants of KM 119.

I propose we complete this one by adding the date line 1829  KM#125 MEINIGEN to the KM#120 listing. 

According to the photos of the MEINIGEN variety posted by Essor Prof on 12/15/2023, it appears the missing letter is the only substantial difference, which I agree makes it strange that KM has this as a different type.  

Yes, it means we deviate from what KM has, but I think there are many such instances. 

An interesting note for U.S. collectors who are as old as me :  the Craig catalog has only two listings for the ¼ kreuzer:

• C-33 1828-1832
• C-33a MEINIGEN 1829. 

For KM#119, I understand that the main devices and lettering are the same as KM#120.  But the coin has a substantially different appearance obverse due to the size/spacing of the lettering.  (We also currently list these two types as having different diameters, though I understand this can simply reflect the specimen measured by a member).  Titles could be annotated to include “Wide legend” for one, “Narrow legend” for the other.

Thoughts?

The MEINIGEN type has now been added as a date line in KM#120, referencing that it is a separate KM type.  

So we will close.

Should have added KM# 125 to the references.

Thanks.  Done.

Just to confirm, that MEINIGEN is a minting error (Jäger catalogue)