Guernsey 8 Doubles 1834 and 1858 KM#3 - Differences

Hi All, 

it's more than two decades that I wonder why these two coins should be considered belonging to the same kind as Krause did in World Coins catalogues. 

Guernsey minted its first 8 doubles coin in 1834, reigning William IV, for a single year and then again in 1858 when Queen Victoria had sat on the throne for over 20 years, again for a single year.

Was, for these coins, used the same die? Definitely not. 

Let's look at the pictures:

The characters on the reverse are different for size and style, please look at the space inside the “D” or the “O” or the tail of the “L” or the “E”.

Also note how different is the “8” in the date.

The differences of the obverses are less evident but still obvious: the size of the characters (wider for the 1834 coin, high 2,2 mm) while the “GUERNESEY” writtings are both large 24,4 mm so the letters in 1858 coins are more spaced (high 2,3 mm). 

The coat of arms are again different in size: 22,8 mm including the upper leaves for 1834 and 21,6 for 1858. 

And finally: 

1834: weight 20,51 g, diameter 34,6 mm, thickness: 3,0 mm

1858: weight 18,09 g, diameter 34,7 mm, thickness: 2,8 mm

So my question is: why World Coins authors included two coins, minted from two different rulers and different on both sides, in the same kind? 

Is there any chance at least to create 2 subtypes KM3a and KM3b?

I wait for your replies.

Ciao,

Dario

I guess in the early 70s the differences you point out were too minimal for a different Km, I think honestly they still are. It is logical that a new die would have been produced for the later coin, so some differences are expected - but the overall design, size and composition are all the same, hence Km 3.

1 or 2 tenths of a millimetre is not a difference and can easily be explained by differences in wear, likewise 2 grams from 20.

However if you strongly believe that the two should be separated, measure and document the proofs at the Royal Mint and then try and persuade NumisMaster to change the Km. 
 

Numista has nothing to do with Km numbers, as you asked about creating subtypes.

Oups, I never made a CR for this, because they are type variants!

If you want to I can easily make a CR?

Numista can NOT create KM#, by the way.

Sjoelund

Oups, I never made a CR for this, because they are type variants!

 

If you want to I can easily make a CR?

HI Ole, thank you, at least it could be nice to make a CR so other people can be aware about the differences. 

I remain on my idea. Two kings, more than 20 years from a coin and the other, slight differences but well visible from anyone (also in 19th century when minted or in 20th when catalogued) in both sides of the dies, more than 2 grams of different weight. These should have been treated as different coins and it was a mistake. 

If you want to you can make the CR?

Hi Ole, I am not very experienced on it. If you need help with more data, measures just ask and I will provide if I can. We could also try to collect more information from other collectors and have a better idea about the differences between the two kinds

I weighed my 1858 and it is 18,5g, the weight on Numista is recorded as 20g, and you say your 1834 is 20,5g. However your differing measurements do not explain a 2g difference. No weight is recorded on NGC or NumisMaster, UCoin just copies whatever Numista has. However sale platforms list weight for 1834 as ca. 20.5g and 1858 as ca. 18.5g, so it appears there is a 2g difference for the years. What does SCWC say for weight?
 

A simple weight difference explanation in the notes would be useful, a deep dive into differences hardly noticeable isnt as they are clearly defined by the different year, only if these differences appeared on both years then it is needed.

As for what the OP believes is a mistake, I don’t, as the differences are way too minor - the design is the same and the only difference seems to be a slightly heavier blank or planchet. A different ruler (when not named) doesn’t constitute a different Km number especially when the design is the same, the next iteration in 1864 saw a reduction in size and a halving in weight - that constitutes a different Km number but has more obvious differences in designs (as indicated by Sjoelunds CR) and Km acknowledges these types with Km 7.1 etc.

Again, I don’t believe it constitutes a variant, but make your case to NumisMaster, they will tell you if you are right or wrong.

The weight is not declared on Numismater and on SCWC, and I could also think that this is due to the different weights of the the two coins, maybe they didn't know what to write, 18,5 or 20,5 g? 

Can someone else provide more weights for its own coin?

Ciao,

Dario

HI,

here is the graphic with your main findings

Thickness and diameter are nearly the same so no use in mentioning them, anything else you want to add?

Hi Ole, 

thank you for your great job, I am not sure that the difference of thickness is not directly responsible for the difference of weight (it should be) so maybe it would be better to report it too? What do you think?

I don't believe a lot in thicknesses, since calipers exist in many forms and materials. Some are electronic with 3 decimals, some with 2 and then some with just 1! Some electronics are made of steel, others i plastic. Then you have those with no mm, so you have to be good at calibrating.

Many times you compare tomatoes with melons, so don't believe too much in thickness measures…..

Sjoelund

HI,

 

here is the graphic with your main findings

 

Thickness and diameter are nearly the same so no use in mentioning them, anything else you want to add?

AS @King said, there is NO reason to show the differences, since we just have to know that the 1834 is different from the 1858. If you would be able to discuss with “Numismaster” defending your case of splitting the km3 into two sub-types, then the differences are important, but the normal collector will just enter it in Numista without further thought….. you can still make a CR to add the graphic to the comments section, and it will most probably be accepted if you give this thread as source.

Let's go on with these comments then, thank you again Ole 

Lettering is different, thinner and bolder on 1858 coin and it has a thicker rim than 1834. 1834 looks more Georgian whilst the 1858 has the Victorian solidity of it next to its Regency dandy cousin.

Moneytane

Lettering is different, thinner and bolder on 1858 coin and it has a thicker rim than 1834. 1834 looks more Georgian whilst the 1858 has the Victorian solidity of it next to its Regency dandy cousin.

Another reason to consider these two coins as different ones

Numista can NOT create any KM# or Sub#, what numista can is split into different pages, but what search criteria would you use?

So this is a case, where everything has to be documented in the comments section. For me, this is not very important, since the graphic and the years tell everything worth knowing?

Yes, Ole, I'm not asking for any more action here on Numista. Just make aware the type collectors of the difference between the two years, so anyone can decide to collect both of them, as I did, if he/she'd like

I have two 1834 dated coins and one 1858 dated coin.

1834 #1 - condition: fine; weight = 20.284 grams; diameter = 34.56 mm; coin alignment

1834 #2 - condition: very fine; weight = 20.492 grams; diameter = 34.62 mm; coin alignment

1858 #1 - condition: very fine; weight = 18.407 grams; diameter = 34.77 mm; coin alignment

Two other observations:

The 9th Edition of the SCWC for 1801-1900 lists two types for the 1834 date. The only stated difference is in composition; for KM#3, the composition is listed as “copper” and for KM#3a, the composition is listed as “bronze plated copper.” No weights are given for these coins, and for KM#3, the 1834 date is grouped with the 1858 date; for KM#3a, only the 1834 date is listed.

Interestingly, the contemporary coin to these in Great Britain (1834 penny) is listed in the SCWC as having a weight of 18.61 grams and a diameter of 34 mm. The 1858 dated Great Britain penny is listed as having a weight of 18.80 grams with no diameter given.

So, the 1834 dated Guernsey 8 doubles coin still stands out as being surprisingly heavy. 

thoram2

So, the 1834 dated Guernsey 8 doubles coin still stands out as being surprisingly heavy. 

I didn't forget to point out it in the new comment section of the coin👌 

I don't think the differences in design are enough to split the dates into two pages, but if we can confirm that 1834 pieces are consistently heavier, that would justify it.

Don't split, please. The years are enough to know which coin is which!

Yes, Ole, I'm not asking for any more action here on Numista. Just make aware the type collectors of the difference between the two years, so anyone can decide to collect both of them, as I did, if he/she'd like

In my opinion, Ole's post in the “comments” section covers the differences between the two versions of this coin quite nicely.

The only further change to the Numista page for this coin that I would recommend would be to change the “Weight” value in the “Features” table at the beginning of the page to “See Comments Section”. Right now, the entry for that line is still “20 grams” which isn't really correct for either version of this coin and is likely to cause confusion for people who do not read Ole's the post in the “Comments” section.

Ye ole plot thickens…

The 4 doubles series from Guernsey has an 1830 dated coin grouped with the next issue in the series (dated 1858)

N#8781

Quite similar to the 8 doubles series that is being discussed here (except the first date in the 8 doubles series is 1834 instead of 1830).

The weight of my 1930 dated 4 doubles coin is 9.839 grams - significantly higher than the weight Numista lists for this coin (8.875 grams).

So, just like the 8 doubles series, the 1830s dated coin weighs more than expected.

If you divide the weight of my 4 doubles coin by the weight given by Numista for the coins in this series, you get 1.107. The weight Numista gives is presumably for the 1858 date (it is far too low to have come from a 1830 dated coin). 

If you take the average weight of the two 1834 dated 8 doubles coins I measured (20.388 grams; weights given earlier in this discussion) by the weight of my 1858 8 doubles coin (18.407 g) you get 1.108. 

Thus, for both the 8 doubles and the 4 doubles, the 1830s dated coin weighs about 11% more than the next coin in the series (dated 1858 in both cases).

We can't make this same comparison for the 2 doubles series because there is no 1830s dated coin for that series.

There is an 1830s dated coin in the 1 double series (dated 1830). 

N#22515

It isn't grouped by the SCWC or Numista with any other 1 double coin (the next date in the series is 1868, which has a different KM number and N number).

The weight of my 1830 1 double coin is 2.341 grams which falls between the weight given in Numista for the 1830 1 double coin (2.5 grams) and the weight of the 1868 1 double coin (2.26 grams). 

Interestingly, 2.5 g divided by 2.26 g is 1.106 indicating the 1830s dated coin should be about 11% heavier than the next coin in the series similar to the 4 doubles series and the 8 doubles series), BUT if I use the actual weight of my 1830 dated 1 double coin to make the calculation, I get 1.036 or about 3.6% heavier than the 1868 and later 1 double coins.

This makes w me wonder if my 1830 1 double coin is underweight for some reason (if 2.5 grams is the correct weight for that coin). 

It would be interesting to see actual measured weights for other 1830 dated 1 double coins.

My 4 Doubles 1830 weighs 9,62g, lighter than thoram2's one but much heavier than declared (8,875 g ).

I wonder if someone has 1858 one and can weigh it. Maybe 8,875g is the weight of this coin?

My 1 double 1830 weighs 2,23g  and is the “dot before date” kind. 

Maybe we could, as thoram2 asked, report some more 1830 4 doubles and 1 double weights here and make some valuations?