1963 Sudan - 2 Qirsh KM #? [επιλυμένο]

Could not find this in the catalog, looking for a KM number.... thanks. Closest design I can find is KM#33 but the dia does not match...
https://www.ngccoin.com/price-guide/world/sudan-2-ghirsh-km-33-1376-1956-1381-1962-cuid-53140-duid-144745

3.01 grams, 20mm

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces15215.html

Looks like KM #36 to me unless I am missing something

Here is the 2 Qirsh 1963, 20 mm.:

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces15215.html

If you look at the lettering at the bottom center of the reverse.... it looks different....

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces67331.html

You are right, I believe that may be yours

Απόσπασμα: "@josephjk"If you look at the lettering at the bottom center of the reverse.... it looks different....

Yes, they look different. But you are comparing your 1963 coin with a 1967 coin on Numista.
It's always difficult to compare coins from another year. Sometimes there are minor differences for each year, without a change of KM# number. Sometimes they get a sub number (like a lot of the modern coins from Guatemala, who differ a bit each year), sometimes they don't get a sub number.
And look at the mintage figures: all but the 1963 coins have a very small mintage figure. They very probably struck with much more care and special dies looking a bit different than the 1963 ones.

In my opinion, https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces15215.html and https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces67331.html are just duplicate listings and the second one should be removed.

Proof and business strikes of this coin differ. In Numista illustrations are of a Proof coin for 1967 and business strike for 1963 (coin in the first post). In some instances Krause gives different numbers for such coins (e.g. Ethiopia KM45 1977), in Sudan Krause opts for one type number. Whether Numista should have two listings or one, is an open question, probably two listings are better since they reflect distinct differences.

Thank you very much for all your inputs!

Hi,
we discussed about it some tmes ago. Please look. Here are all answers.

yours
David

https://en.numista.com/forum/topic34955.html

Thank you David! Good discussion

It's not uncommon that coins of different years have minor differences within the same KM# number, even without a sub number.
And although this coin has a lot of those differences, they're all minor ones (date far/near the rim, legend spread out/compact, big/small "2", etc.).
I'm totally agree it would be a much better solution if Krause gave the 1963 another sub number (or even a totally different number) than the other years. But giving KM# numbers to coins ourselves (like suggested in the link you referring to (https://en.numista.com/forum/topic34955.html)) is totally unacceptable. When everybody is going to give their own KM# numbers, that will be the end of coin cataloging. The only one who can give KM# numbers is Krause. And I know Krause makes mistakes (don't we all?), and in recent years more and more, but sometimes we just have to accept that. Or find some inventive solutions, like you did with the pictures and description in the comment sector of this coinpage (https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces67331.html).
BUT creating a duplicate listing for the same coin (the 1963 coin is in both listings https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces67331.html and https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces15215.html) isn't the solution either. So the https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces67331.html (without a KM# number!!!) should be removed and your pictures and descriptions in the comment sector on that coin page should be shifted to the other coin page.
In my opinion that's the best solution as long as Krause doesn't give another KM# number or subnummer to the 1963 coin.

We dont know if there another subtypes of 1963 2 qirsh. Thats why it is in both listings.

We have another, more serious discoveries in Sudan coinage, which Krause will report only after 5-6 years. But it doesnot mean that we must to wait until they will decide separate 50 piastres 2006 and 20 piastres 2006 on magnetic and non-magnetic ones.

Also, - Sudan coins are divided by subtypes by more smaller diferencies, - for example, only thin denomination is quite enough to make another subtype in 2 girsh of 1975 - 1980 type. Coin is so different, that we dicided to create another listing for this one. Listing was validate by team member.
So, whats a problem? there are plenty of really unidentified coins in catalog, and nobody cares them, and this one, which is completely observed, and by most votes was put as separate coin, - this one disturbes someone? then no problem, - you can contact any team member who will delete it. I cannot, sorry.
yours
D

Απόσπασμα: "Dato Mikeladze"We dont know if there another subtypes of 1963 2 qirsh. Thats why it is in both listings.

That's exactly the whole point! There is NOWHERE any mentioning about the existence of two different subtypes of the 1963 coin. And that's exactly the reason why the 1963 can't be in both listings.
We don't know either if there are two different subtypes of the 1966, 1967, 1968 or 1969 coin. So why don't we put those in both listings? We don't know if there exists a 1964 or 1965 coin, must we add these too? In both listings then?
You see what I mean? We just have to stick to the facts and the facts are:
- There is no 1964 or 1965, so we don't add this anywhere.
- There is nowhere any mentioning about two different subtypes for the 1966, 1967, 1968 or 1969 coin, so we don't add those years in two different listings.
- The 1963 coin differs from all the other years, there is absolutely no discussion about that. BUT there is nowhere any mentioning about two different subtypes for the 1963 coin, so we don't add those years in two different listings either, until proven a second subtype exists!

What we have done is try to correct a mistake made in Krause, by making a mistake of our own here in Numista: making a duplicate listing. Is that a better solution than the mistake Krause made? I don't think so. What Krause did was not giving a number/subnumber to a coin of a certain year that differs from coins of other years. What we did is having the same coin now in two different listings, and having a listing without a KM# number at all. What is worse?
I'm still convinced the best solution is one listing, with the KM# number as it is in Krause, and with your pictures and descriptions about the differences between the 1963 coin and the other dates.
It's obvious you're not agreed with that and you want to stick to two different listings, but in that case, at least remove the 1963 year line from the listing with all the other years. Then at least we correct one of the two mistakes we made.

And Dato, please don't feel personally attacked, I have an enormous respect for all the hard work and effort you put in Numista. I'm only giving my opinion, as well argued as I possibly can, with only one goal: to make the Numista catalog as accurate and consistent and logic as possible. I really believe Numista is the best there is but we still have a long way to go and I just do my very best to reach that goal, as many many others do, including you.

Essor Prof
I dont count it as personal attack, - what you say! its healthy discussion, and coins should be listed correctly - here I agree with you. But nobody ticked attention on this 1963 type before. And, to say the true, I really think that it must be listed as subtype. The only reason that it is a 2 qirsh coin with camel and rider doesnot give it rights to be listed under other KM#36. What if camel and rider would play chess? Also KM#36? I think no. Well - we can put eyes on sizez and thickness. but different leg crossing? Its 100% newsubtype.
Regarding deleting - I really cannot do it - its over my rights.
yours
D.

I definitely agree with you it's a 100 % new subtype. The only problem is that Krause doesn't see it that way, consciously or by mistake. It would be ideal if we could correct mistakes in Krause, or if we had an inside man there who listens to us. Unfortunately, we can't and we haven't.

But in all honesty, I'm pretty sure you're convinced too that all the 1963 coins are the same and there is no second subtype for that year. There is no proof of it whatsoever, and even nowhere any mentioning about it.
I can understand you as referee don't have the rights to remove a whole listing, but I assume you do have the rights to remove a year line in an existing listing? If not, are you agree I ask a catalog moderator to remove the 1963 year line in the first listing? So keep two listings, one for the 1963 coin, and the other for all the other years.

I think this was to tow diffren coin