South Korea: 10 won 1989, km33.1, versus 2002, km33.2, they are the same?

Hi,

I think that the km33.2 does NOT exist!
The 1998 is supposed to be km33.1 and 2002 is supposed to be km33.2, but they are 100% the same!!!!!

SORRY, tomorrow I'll go back to the same with a coin from before 1997 to check, I just see that the 1998 is always 33.2, so it was a bad documentation!!!





Ole

Ole Is it just me But I think there is more going on. Look at these 1997 The space between 1 and 0 .Is one larger


Are all he years this way? And only found on some

Or is some numbers are high off the field Or does this Km number have both for all years.

Hi Daryl,

the 1998 is also supposed to be 33.2!!, Tomorrow I'll redo the documentation with a coin from 1996, where I'm sure the year is a real and anly 33.1!

Ole

I think you can find this on most years. Iam starting to think die cleaning open the gap between them. See if you can find on same years too
edit I think you can find bold numbers ,Value and date, And fine For the same year. For all the years just about.

Hi,

so now I have used a 1989 coin, which is a km33.1 and compared it to the 2002, which according to the SCWC is a km33.2 and I came to the same result, they are exactly the same, except for a slight difference in the dates.... which is really not worth mentioning.



Ole

As a contributor to Krause, specifically for South Korea, Gibraltar, and Isle of Man., I provided the evidence and the coins they required to create both the KM33.1 and the KM33.2 listing. That has not changed. Page 1372 clearly illustrates the differences in the denomination between the two types. 33.2 is a much thicker type.

I think they should be separated and have their own page. The difference is clear and obvious!

But what we might need to do is have folks check their change and see if they have the 33.1 denomination digits or the 33.2 denomination digits. While living in Korea I was never able to find that a single year had both types. My research yielded one type or the other for each year.

I respectfully disagree that a difference clearly indicating a different master die should be dismissed.


But here is the worst...There is probably a 33.3 and perhaps a 33.4 also...as coins in mint sets struck for distributions to VIP are prepared from dies that are neither 33.1 or 33.2.

I agree this requires further research. I dont think Krause is wrong. My thought was to create separate pages for 33.1 and 33.2, and then we could determine which dates belong in which listing.

I would appreciate further discussion before this is done, or any radical altering of the existing listing.

Discussion?

I will be the first to say that the difference in Krause is not based on a narrower or a wider date. It based on the digits 1 and 0 that are the significant design, and is located beneath the date on the reverse. This "10" is the main design on the reverse. And the differences between the two types are glaringly obvious. I would agree with persons wondering about a difference between the dates. And I would agree there seems to be no significant differences.

Also, the page 1372 reference is to the 2019, 46th edition of the SCWC 1901- 2000 edition.

(https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces978.html)

I neither have a Krause that new nor have one covering that century, so pictures here would definitely help!

And while there are currently pictures in the above page, I do not think they are sufficient, solely due to the way they are cropped (the slightly blurry one could be slightly zoomed-in, and it would be impossible to know). For this variety to stay on the page, I would think to include a full view of both types.

So far, the only examples I have to go by with a full view are the ones provided by Sjoelund. It could be possible both are actually of the same type, but if that is the case, there is going to need to be some edits to the Numista page (since the examples he chose are only listed as being from one type).

Now, if there is actually a difference, I do not think the pieces should get their own pages. New master die or not, it is still visually the same type, just with a different variety.

So what am I getting at here?

1. There needs to be proof these types are different, and
   
2. Said proof needs to be added to the page. If both those are met:
   
3. Let's see some pictures of other people's examples! There are 11,300. different claims of people who own this type amongst all dates, so I am sure some of them will be able to provide pictures of their examples. I know I would love to, if I owned the type.
   
4. And when more examples come, you will be able to determine which type(s) belong to which dates, and can update the page accordingly.
   

But of course, before we get to point 3, we need to start at point 1. Since you, Oklahoman, have the most knowledge of these types, would you be able to provide a definite example of each? That way, everyone will know what we are actually looking at.

Sorry. I am trying not to be sensitive. But it sounds like you have decided change is a done deal. And that I need to prove to you that this variety exists to even maintain the status quo.

The types have nothing to do with the dates. They have everything to do with the "10" and I guess there is some concern about whether a date has just one of the 10 types or the other 10 types or both.

I think we definately should keep up the research to determine whether a date is one type or the other or both.

There are very clearly two reported types. There are a further two unreported types. When adequate photographs are presented as examples they definately will be uploaded to illustrate the listed varieties.

Here is this for starters. The types were never because of the date. They were because of the differences in the 10. Perhaps I just need to remove references to the date as the reason for the varieties..

I mean, I would not say anything is a done deal without you agreeing--you are the referee, after all.

And those pictures from Krause definitely look like there is a difference! Here are some close-ups, for anyone who is interested:


So, if there is definitely a difference, those varieties can definitely remain separate. But before asking people to check their varieties, it would make the most sense to include some sort of pictures (similar to the Krause ones) on the coin's page. That way, there would be an easier way for people to compare their own coins on the same page it is related to before saying what they have.

And with the dates: even if the dates have nothing to do with this, it would help if we could determine which dates have which varieties. So, looking at the examples on Krause, Sjoelund's examples (which both look like KM#32.2, correct?), and the pictured example on the page, we have:
1983: KM#32.1
1989: KM#32.2
2001: KM#32.2
2002: KM#32.2

Right now, only 1989 is an anomaly, as there is only a KM#31.1 line listed on Numista for that date.

Hi,

here is the 1989

the 2005

and the 2006

and here the 1989 and 2006


The 1989 is definitely more bold!

Ole

It is very easy to see with the serif in the one.

NOBODY in Korea acknowledges the 33.1 and 33.2 ("thicker value below date") distinctions for the 10-Won coin.

 

Therefore, I do not, either.

 

The Koreans also do not acknowledge the 35.1 (small bust) and 35.2 (large bust) for the 100-Won.

 

When I inform Koreans of the Krause cataloging South Korean coins as such, I get rather befuddled or bemused reactions.  

It's a joke to them.  Very minor “serif changes” or “position changes” on a coin are not tantamount to a new catalog number or “variety” to them.  Only very CLEAR spacing or other variations matter.  And that's what I think Numista should follow.

 

Krause probably will NOT remove these distinctions.  

So, it's up to Numista if they still want to follow Krause or the Korean numismatic community's views of these coins.

 

I wrote my 400-page book on South Korean coins according to Korean cataloguing.   Not Krause.

Thanks for your opinion.  It exists.  It's staying.  This is a valid type. It is different.  It will remain acknowledged whether a “korean” laughs or not.

 

I am looking forward to receiving your book in English, which I have purchased since it is in English.  Time will determine whether your book is what you say it is.  I look forward to checking it out.  But if all you got to make your book look better is criticism of the book that was, and perhaps still is the world standard is a bit off putting.  

 

I lived in Taejon, I visited their museums.  I was a part of the collecting community it.  I spent my time researching and collecting out of change while living there.  I brought back knowledge and made it available to Krause and to numista.  I am not impressed with how you say things sir.  I remain to be convinced that the"koreans" would throw away their own numismatic books in their language for your book in English.  I think your book will be a good one to make koreannumismatics available to others. But shouldn't your book stand on its own and not ham handed criticism if the work others have done?  You risk alienating those of us who could be your biggest allies.  I like the Banknote Book, but Owen is hard to respect for his arrogance and comparisons to works that came before.  Don't be Owen.

Oklahoman

Thanks for your opinion.  It exists.  It's staying.  This is a valid type. It is different.  It will remain acknowledged whether a “korean” laughs or not.

 

I am looking forward to receiving your book in English, which I have purchased since it is in English.  Time will determine whether your book is what you say it is.  I look forward to checking it out.  But if all you got to make your book look better is criticism of the book that was, and perhaps still is the world standard is a bit off putting.  

 

I lived in Taejon, I visited their museums.  I was a part of the collecting community it.  I spent my time researching and collecting out of change while living there.  I brought back knowledge and made it available to Krause and to numista.  I am not impressed with how you say things sir.  I remain to be convinced that the"koreans" would throw away their own numismatic books in their language for your book in English.  I think your book will be a good one to make koreannumismatics available to others. But shouldn't your book stand on its own and not ham handed criticism if the work others have done?  You risk alienating those of us who could be your biggest allies.  I like the Banknote Book, but Owen is hard to respect for his arrogance and comparisons to works that came before.  Don't be Owen.

Thanks for your response.

 

If my critical statements on Krause varieties sounded “ham handed” to you, I do apologize.  Like I originally said, it is up to Numista to recognize them or not.  I was giving my opinion, which is different from yours.  I trust that isn't the source of your irritation?  I was simply trying to explain that none of the Krause varieties (KM 33.1 and 33.2 and 35.1 and 35.2) are not acknowledged by, what I'm assuming are, the majority of the collectors and dealers of these coins who live in Korea.  If members of Numista want to follow these varieties, that's fine.  It just isn't my cup of tea, and I'm giving my opinion (whatever one thinks of it).  I have a hard time believing that the “thicker numerals below date” thingy is deserving of a separate catalog identifier (KM# 33.2).  I think there are other more significant and much more visually striking varieties that are not being recognized by Krause (1969 Five-Won, 1973 10-Won, 1968 One-Won).  Those are mentioned in my book.

 

I have a question:  What is the world standard book on South Korean coins to you?    Are you referring to Krause?  To Jo Byeongsu's 2006 book?   What book is it that you say I am “criticizing?”   If it's Krause, yes, a little bit, sure.  But I'm not the only one in numismatics doing that(!)  I suppose to be fair to the Standard Catalog, they have a rather big job of trying to catalog the entire world from 1400 AD to the present date, so we should have some understanding of why things ended up they way they are in their catalog.  However, I don't know of any other book (written in Korea?) that I have, by commission or omission, criticized.  Please inform.

 

Oh, and nobody in Korea is going to throw away any books in their own first language just to solely refer to mine!  Mine will complement the literature in Korean and FOR SURE expand upon it, and hopefully inspire more literature on the subject.  

 

And if you don't like how I describe my book as the standard work on the subject of South Korean coins, I suppose that's a legitimate complaint.  Especially if you haven't been able to judge for yourself.   I do stand by my statement that this new book on South Korean coins is (or maybe to be fair, will be) the standard work on the subject.  I have yet to find a book in any language that gives as much background or data on the circulation coins that has actual references to the source materials (unlike anything I've been able to find).  Instead of my book being the final word on South Korean coins, I hope my book shakes some people up in Korea, and gets the Bank of Korea to start opening its archives to researchers/writers in Korea and then THEY can build off of my book and create an even better work, and in Korean!  That would be the best outcome of my book being published, IMO.

 

When you receive the book, please attempt to show me any other single fully-cited (or not fully-cited!) source that provides readers with as much detailed information on South Korean coins than mine does.  Once you dig into the book, I trust that you will find that I am making statements of fact, and I hope that these statements don't come off as arrogance to you.  If you continue to find my contributions here annoying, I have no problem not commenting here at Numista any further.

 

Cheers.

Hello team,

 

while I'm certainly no expert numismat, especially not on Korea coins, I've noticed (and marked on the pic from the three of my coins) two things not discussed above:

Hope to hear your thoughts on this.

Dejan

 

Hello team,

 

while I'm certainly no expert numismat, especially not on Korea coins, I've noticed (and marked on the pic from the three of my coins) two things not discussed above:

Hope to hear your thoughts on this.

You're certainly right in your observations. Without having researched anything it would normally signify 3 different types or sub-types, but I see in my collection

1983-2000 km33.1

2000-2006 km33.2

2006-at least 2019 km103

so the 1995 variant was never recognized! We would need images 1983, 1994, 1995 (done), 1999, 2000 km33.1, 2000 km33.2 and km2006 (km33.2) to see if the dots over the dates correspond to your findings?

Wouldn't it be better if you found differences in the same date?  These images are all from different dates.  Most mints make a new master die each year…

Oklahoman

Wouldn't it be better if you found differences in the same date?  These images are all from different dates.  Most mints make a new master die each year…

That goes without saying, as indicated above the years 2000 and 2006 ought to be the first to be investigated, because each has two types.

 

Changes between years can only result in type changes

 

Changes in a year can be either a type change OR a variety.