How do you, what is the right solution for the Numista catalogue for this issue?
Also, the same problem is for Prussia-Poland, etc. Maybe, it is better to make any special remark and crosslinks for such "be-state" coins...
Lol, on the Prussian shilling what is a fourd king (4rd king)?
If we use KM references and they do not correspond with the same country on Numista it should at least be a footnote in the comments otherwise they are useless.
On further inspection of the coin pages of the 1763D there are comments that would suffice but I still would be against listing the exact coin in two places.
Idolenz : On further inspection of the coin pages of the 1763D there are comments that would suffice but I still would be against listing the exact coin in two places.
Yes, I agree that maybe it is not good to place one coins twice in different places. BTW, there are some other coins that placed twice already, in case of this decision this should corrected to follow one rule.
Also, for this Prussia-E-Friesland case, there is one important moment. The coin does not include any text for Friesland and the sign of Prussian King. So, this argument is to treat the coin as Prussian. However, the comment is needed. Possible, I will write it later.
Indeed should only be in one place.
I have to admit I did not look much at Prussia as I have a Co-Referee taking care for Prussia.
The issuer is Prussia but the have struck sometimes seperate coins to circulate only in certain areas. Also some coins where struck the same but with different mitmarks for the different places where they have been minted and there is some inconsistency where the coins are placed here.
If you like coins, medals and tokens with ship motives follow my new instagram account with regular updates @numisnautiker
From time to time I sell some coins on Ebay make sure to follow me @apuking on Ebay.