My collection includes a circulated example of a coin from this series dated 1931.
The Numista web page for this coin series states that these coins were minted in bronze and should weigh 3.85 grams.
My coin has the distinctive color of circulated aluminum bronze (a more yellowish color than circulated bronze) and it weighs 4.085 grams.
The SCWC/Numismaster/NGC all indicate that coins from this series are in fact made from aluminum bronze and should weight 4.1 grams.
The weight and color of my 1931 dated coin support the SCWC/Numismaster/NGC specifications and suggest the weight and composition information for these coins on the Numista webpage are not correct.
Can others who own an example of a coin from this series confirm or refute the color and weight data I obtained from my 1931 coin?
I have 2* 1925, 1933, 1940. The 1933 might be a little lighter in color than the 1925s. The 1940 looks the most yellow, but it has the most environmental damage (gunk in many places, and scrapes or attempts to get the gunk off).
I'm sorry, but weighing them doesn't fit in my schedule this week.
The change in 2015 cited Lecompte … so this gets interesting.
Presumably UCoin followed Lecompte.
But if we have a member-weighed coin at 4.085 we're at 6% above 3.85 which sounds a bit high for variation on 20th century milled coinage.
So, indeed it will be interesting to see what weight other members get.
If the early issue with the mintmark and privy mark in different locations was actually specified at a lower weight, it should be a different type in Numista.
I don't doubt the 4.085 weight for the 1931 KM# 5.2 coin. Krause split the 1925 coins into two sub types. Seems unusual to create a sub type just for a change in the mintmaster mark location? A weight change with the same composition/design seems like justification for a different sub type.
I'm just guessing here waiting for facts (weight of 1925 with both marks on left).
@rsirian1 That would not surprise me at all for KM. On Dutch Republic coins, they often assigned different subtypes just for a change in privy mark. But yes, a weight change is a more compelling reason.
@rsirian1 That would not surprise me at all for KM. On Dutch Republic coins, they often assigned different subtypes just for a change in privy mark. But yes, a weight change is a more compelling reason.
I agree. KM is anything but completely consistent.
I'm satisfied. The 4.10 g in SCWC only applies to KM# 5.2. The 35th Edition 2008 did not have weight for either 5.1 and 5.2. By the 42nd Edition 2015 they had added the 4.10 g weight but only for KM# 5.2. Lecompte's 3.85 g is probably correct for KM# 5.1. So….
Add a Comment about the KM# 5.1 weight being different or split the page. I'd vote for the comment.
I suppose the information I am going to provide will complicate things even more, but it is what I have... all my coins (including the 1925 one) are KM#5.2 (I do not have the 1925 KM#5.1 one), and their weights are:
1925: 4.07gr
1931: 3.98gr
1933: 3.95gr
1936: 3.84gr
1940: 3.92gr
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
The use of 2 subtypes of a KM number in SCWC is only come about because of a change in privy mark positioning.
SCWC “1985” edition uses Y numbers for Lebanon, so this is before the SCWC staff had given these coins their own “KM” numbers. What are now KM-5.1 and KM-5.2 were then two subtypes of a Y number. For each of these subtypes, before the date/values list for the subtype, there is a statement to detail the privy mark positioning on the reverse of the coin. No mention of mass/grams.
SCWC “1985” edition uses Y numbers for many other countries. With Y numbers it was normal for different mint marks for a type (e.g. coins of Germany and France) to give rise to different subtype numbers. So it is not unexpected that there were two subtypes of a Y number for these particular coins from Lebanon.
SCWC “1996” edition uses KM-5.1 and KM-5.2 for these two subtypes. I guess that the SCWC staff kept these as two subtypes so as to avoid the need for a note against each of the two 1925 date lines that would have been a part of the date/values list. For each of these subtypes, before the date/values list for the subtype, in this edition, there is a statement to detail privy mark positioning on the reverse (statements as seen in earlier editions). No mention of mass/grams.
Now (as in the clip from a “recent” SCWC as seen in a reply in the topic) the SCWC shows images (obverse and reverse) for KM-5.2, then some details and date/value listing for KM-5.1 with nothing about privy mark positioning and then some details and date/value listing for KM-5.2 with details about privy mark positioning as well as mass.
So a revision of SCWC (after the “1996” edition) had removed some key information for KM-5.1. That revision would likely have been when SCWC moved to a different database/system some tie ago. The SCWC error has led to a bit of confusion.
I could guess that the 2 versions of the 1925 date will each have the same average mass if several examples of each were weighed but measurements for this could prove me wrong.
Such measurements would back up the decision that has been made to give KM-5.1 a different mass on Numista.
It would also be helpful if someone has Lecompte and can check exactly how that reference reports the weight, since it seemed the 2015 change was based on that reference.
Finally, if the consensus is to remove the comment on the lighter weight for KM# 5.1 let me know.
I think @Sjoelund data is compelling (lighter/thinner). The ratio of thickness is almost identical to the ratio of weights as would be expected. I don't think Numista should ignore it. Having the Lecompte reference is important. Also, with an NRI of 10 and 33% for the two 1925's there are about 400 members for each year line. There should be enough information out there to find the truth.
I have now worked out some more on this same subject. I think that I have perhaps written too much but this is only to make clear why I think some things need to be changed. I think this will be all there is to say now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
One coin is not enough to determine what the "normal" mass might be for a subtype such as Lebanon KM-5.1, not when we have seen varying figures for the mass of some examples of KM-5.2 with Numista members. I tried to find some more data for KM-5.1, this did not me far for KM-5.1, however, there does seem to be more to consider for Lebanon KM-5.2. I also notice a problem with a rather similar coin type from Syria.
French dealer "cgb.fr" has sold many examples of both Lebanon KM-5.1 and KM-5.2, over a period of 10 years or so. These can be seen in their archive, where it can be seen that initially cgb.fr were not detailing the mass of the pieces being offered (neither the mass from a book nor a measured mass). Then for a while they were often using a figure of 3.85 grams evidently from a catalogue. From the mass values that they state that actually seem to be real measurements, I could see an amount of duplication of data. This was where, for example, when a piece of each of KM-5.1 or KM-5.2 had been offered for sale at around the same time of the same year and the listings for those pieces used the same figure for the mass, this made it seem to be likely that only one of the two pieces had actually been weighed, therefore such pairs of measurements shall be considered to be unreliable. This is even though it would be possible for the two pieces to have actually weighed the same on some occasions.
The remaining data included a pair of KM-5.1 coins that had been offered at about the same time and had the same measured mass listed so one of these was removed from the data. There was the same situation for a pair of KM-5.2 coins so one of those was removed too. (I agree it is possible two pieces could have had the same mass.) For KM-5.1, this left just 2 mass measurements and one of these, just 3.77 grams, is the lowest mass recorded by cgb.fr for any KM-5.1/KM-5.2 and this example was perhaps the most worn looking piece of them all. So I won't conclude anything from the cgb.fr measurements for KM-5.1, but I will note that the measurement for the other of these two pieces of KM-5.1 was 4.02 grams, this was for a piece that cgb.fr had graded as AU.
For KM-5.2, the removal of less reliable data left 12 mass measurements (5 for 1925, 2 of 1936 and 5 for 1940). The 12 pieces had been graded by cgb.fr as follows: 2*VF, 6*XF and 4*AU. The average mass for these 12 pieces was 3.97 grams (to the nearest 0.01 gram). In the group of 12 pieces of KM-5.2 only two pieces had a mass of 4.00 grams or over, these were:- one at 4.08 grams and one at 4.21 grams.
For a bit of comparison – a quick mention of the Lebanon 2 Piastres coins listed as cgb.fr past sales. Lebanon 2 Piastres KM-1 (always date 1924) and 2 Piastres KM-4 (always date 1925) are listed in SCWC as though they have a specified mass of 2.00 grams. The cgb.fr site says "2g" for some pieces of these two types of 2 Piastres. In their archive of past sales. Then for a few that they must have actually weighed, most measurements seem to be a bit below 2.00g, except for the lower grade pieces that are a bit below 1.90g, I did not notice any at over 2.00 grams. Note that other coins of Lebanon for this period are also detailed in SCWC as having "round figure" weights, very often a whole number of grams.
So, a point to make: From all of the above, I would conclude that 4.00 grams (or possibly just “4 g”) as the mass (weight) for Lebanon 5 Piastres KM-5.2 is more suitable/accurate than 4.10 grams as currently used and with more than a small margin of certainty.
The Syria 5 Piastres KM-70 is similar in many ways to the Lebanon 5 Piastres KM-5.1 and KM-5.2. I did a similar analysis of cgb.fr past sales data for this Syrian type. Again, the older listings were without mass measurements.
Then, for a few years, some of the pieces had the mass stated by cgb.fr as 3.90 grams, this is what had likely been read from an edition of SCWC. Perhaps as many all SCWC issues showing a mass for Syria 5 Piastres KM-70 show the mass for this type to be 3.90 grams, this figure is currently used by Numista. Also, around this time in the cgb.fr offerings, two pieces of KM-70 were offered with the mass detailed as 4 grams, a figure possibly taken from some other reference catalogue.
A total of 9 pieces of Syria KM-70 have been offered by cgb.fr since they last used either of 3.90 grams or 4 grams. Those 9 pieces average 3.99 grams (to the nearest 0.01 grams).
A total of 16 pieces of Syria KM-70 have been offered by cgb.fr and listed with a mass of something other than 3.90 or 4 grams. Those 16 pieces average 3.97 grams (to the nearest 0.01 grams). Wear was easily visible on some of these coins. It seemed that perhaps all 16 pieces had actually been individually measured.
So, a second point to make: For Syria 5 Piastres KM-70, I would conclude that 4.00 grams (or possibly just “4 g”) as the mass (weight) for this type is clearly more suitable/accurate than 3.90 grams as currently used.
The 4.00 grams figure for the above Syrian coin backs up a 4.00 grams figure being used for KM-5.2 and also for KM-5.1.
One other relevant coin type from Lebanon is 5 Piastres KM-2 for which there is only the date 1924, for this type Numista states "Weight 4 g". Two other’s types of relevance are the two France 1 Franc types in Aluminium-Bronze KM-876 (1920 to 1927) and KM-885 (1931 to 1941) for these types Numista also states "Weight 4 g". All of these “Weight 4g” types and those types for which I consider 4.00 grams to be suitable, are all listed on Numista as having 23mm diameter and are all Aluminium-Bronze.
For Lebanon 5 Piastres KM-5.2 and Syria 5 Piastres KM-70 I do not consider the number of samples for which I have data to be great but it seems to be sufficient for this purpose. If anyone else has further data than please note not only the mass but also the approximate grade (then obviously the type and date) for each sample. I have a kept note of the cgb.fr lot number, cgb.fr grade and cgb.fr mass for each of the Lebanon KM-5.1, KM-5.2 and Syria KM-70 pieces in the current cgb.fr archive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here are the data of the Syrian km70 coins in my collection:
The median of the 13 member weighed coins is 3.98 grams (SD of 0.08).
This agrees (amazingly) well with Mr. Baker's findings on the 12 coins sold by CGB that were likely weighed.
So the conclusion that 3.85 is incorrect (only one of our 13 was close to 3.85) appears valid.
If we knew the mint specification (as is the case for 20th century coins of many other places), that would be the preferred figure, even if Numista's guidelines aren't explicit about this.
Lacking this, it sounds like we should use 4.0 as recommended by Mr. Baker.
If we have only 1 low weight example of KM#5.1, do we remove those comments?
Why can't we confirm what the Lecompte catalog says? Surely the referee has it? This post only has 1 measurement of a confirmed KM 5.1 coin which backs up the 3.85g we think comes from Lecompte. We have no confirmed KM 5.1 measurements to support a 4.0 g standard weight. I think we should at least have a comment “The Monnaies et jetons des colonies françaises catalog reports a standard weight for Lec# 27 (KM# 5.1) of 3.85 grams.” (Assuming it actually says that.)
Unfortunately, I don't have the Lecompte. I have its predecessor, the so-called “Blue Gadoury” , 2nd edition (dated 1988). And still unfortunately, the mass of the said coin is not indicated whereas it is for instance for the 5 piastres 1924.
A friend who has a nice collection of world coins had a 1925 dated version of this coin which he let me borrow so I could weigh it.
Examination revealed that it definitely is a KM 5.2 example for the 1925 date. I estimate the condition of the coin to be about EF (very similar in wear and appearance to my 1931 dated KM-5.2 example). It also looks like circulated aluminum bronze rather than circulated bronze.
The weight of his 1925 KM-5.2 coin was 4.086 grams - almost identical to the weight of my 1931 dated coin (4.085 grams).
Being a chemist, I have access to a digital balance at work that is calibrated every 6 months and is accurate to plus or minus 2 milligrams, so the weights I have reported are very accurate and are consistent with an original weight of 4.1 grams for both coins.
Ah, but being an engineer, I also tend to think of tolerances 😁.
Modern U.S. coins are allowed a tolerance of 3-4% of the specified weight. That means a coin specified at 4.0 grams would be expected to demonstrate weights between, say, 3.85 and 4.15 grams, which is consistent with the numbers reported by memberrs.
For me, taking both wear and statistical variation into account, we cannot say whether 4.0 or 4.1 is a better choice. Only with a large number of coins with neglible wear can we make a decision with more confidence. For example, we have not seen any reported value higher than 4.1, which would normally argue against 4.1, except that, as you say, we have very few examples with no wear.
