Duplicate listing [Risolto]

I believe this is a duplicate listing

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces101227.html

N#3953

@RegularCoiner , @Elvi75 To me the earlier listing (N#3953) appears more complete.  

If this is correct, let us know and the collections can be moved and the duplicate eliminated. 

I agree!

But the images are clearly different. Are we sure that this is the same type?

True.

Generally speaking, minor die variations in older types (say, pre-20th century) would not be a reason for a new type.  

It is not specifically excluded in the guidelines (see:  "Coin Types > Significant Design Differences": https://en.numista.com/help/coin-types-145.html ), but to me this difference would not meet the threshold for a new listing.  

Ideally, images showing the crown and lettering types would be added in the Comments to help collectors identify their variant.

The year line comments (using both pages) explain the differences.

smvdbrink

But the images are clearly different. Are we sure that this is the same type?

 

the main differences seems to be that the new one is ONLY overstruck variant.
but the overstruck variants are already listed in N#3953 

I agree with RegularCoiner for a merge.

rsirian1

The year line comments (using both pages) explain the differences.

👍 … though a picture is worth a thousand words (and helps to make Numista more helpful than Krause).

Elvi75

smvdbrink

But the images are clearly different. Are we sure that this is the same type?

 

the main differences seems to be that the new one is ONLY overstruck variant.
but the overstruck variants are already listed in N#3953 

 

I agree with RegularCoiner for a merge.

Also smaller crown and smaller serif at top of G.

tdziemia

Elvi75

smvdbrink

But the images are clearly different. Are we sure that this is the same type?

 

the main differences seems to be that the new one is ONLY overstruck variant.
but the overstruck variants are already listed in N#3953 

 

I agree with RegularCoiner for a merge.

Also smaller crown and smaller serif at top of G.

These crown monogram variants are also already listed in N#3953 

I will go ahead and work on merging the two.  

@RegularCoiner , @Elvi75 

Do either of you have a catalog that covers varieties of this type?

This listing N#3953 

uses the presence or absence of the “hook” on the G, and the size of the numeral IV as the main identifiers.  It is relatively easy to see these differences on examples I can find on acsearch:

1802 small IV, hook on G:

1802 small IV, NO hook on G:

1803 large IV, hook on G:

1803 large IV, NO hook on G:

1803 small IV, hook on G:

But the other listing divides variants by crown type which is not so obvious to me:  N#101227

DO you have a suggestion on how to “map” these onto the other type?  

For example, we could merge each year in #101227 to the most common variant for each year in #3953.

tdziemia

@RegularCoiner , @Elvi75 

Do either of you have a catalog that covers varieties of this type?

 

DO you have a suggestion on how to “map” these onto the other type?  

For example, we could merge each year in #101227 to the most common variant for each year in #3953.

 

In the catalogs i have, i see the descriptions as they are in N#3953 

The years from N#101227 should at least be put in Stockholm Mint (overstruck) and divided at least into crown types.

But I would wait for a response from @RegularCoinerbefore doing anything further.

Elvi75

tdziemia

@RegularCoiner , @Elvi75 

Do either of you have a catalog that covers varieties of this type?

 

DO you have a suggestion on how to “map” these onto the other type?  

For example, we could merge each year in #101227 to the most common variant for each year in #3953.

 

In the catalogs i have, i see the descriptions as they are in N#3953 

 

The years from N#101227 should at least be put in Stockholm Mint (overstruck) and divided at least into crown types.

 

But I would wait for a response from @RegularCoinerbefore doing anything further.

Sounds good! Sorry i could not really participate in the discussion, busy with schoool stuff..

This one is now done.  

The year lines are rather messy now, but it preserves all the previu info from the other listing.

If any way to improve further, let us know.