Split Norway KM#286? [επιλυμένο]

According to this Norwegian catalogue, KM#286 has two varieties, a thick type weighing 11.69 g (1819-1820) and a thin type weighing 9.35 g (1824-1834). Is this weight difference alone enough to split into two pages? If not, how should we record the weight?

According to our guidelines, yes, a 20% decrease in weight is sufficient for a new type, especially in the modern era.  

It's just one of those bad decisions made a long time ago by numista, of course the two types should be separated!

Sjoelund

It's just one of those bad decisions made a long time ago by numista, of course the two types should be separated!

 

 

I think the problem was that there were no weights in SCWC so they were added as the same coin type in Numista.  The weight was added later.  Once they're split in Numista then we'll have the same KM# for two different coins for the same issuer/country.

Yes, I also think that the two subtypes should be separated. I have taken the opportunity to make a modification request to include the mint.

N#18631

Poke @T0r 

rsirian1

Sjoelund

It's just one of those bad decisions made a long time ago by numista, of course the two types should be separated!

 

I think the problem was that there were no weights in SCWC so they were added as the same coin type in Numista.  The weight was added later.  Once they're split in Numista then we'll have the same KM# for two different coins for the same issuer/country.

Yes, it's a shame about the KM# but, unless there's another catalogue we can also refer to, we'll have to put up with it.

I agree, these should be distinct and I know for sure some Norwegian catalogs recognize them as such as well. I will have to dig some deeper in regards to this coin, as it appears to be even more different types. First of all I'm gonna prioritize having the appropriate reference catalog recognized by Numista. This might take some time.

Sincerely,

Tor

I sent a creation request.

Jarcek

I sent a creation request.

I've approved it. Please transfer users from the thin type to the thick type for the applicable years. 

Fixed now, thanks!