Please delete year lines of papal coin [solved]

Hi,

today is about this entry.
Let's begin with the fact that KM# 866 just stands for one of the 1735 year lines and that's it. I guess the Muntoni numbers are for the 6 different versions.
I can understand that KM# 854 (1734) and KM# 867 (1735 V) are in the same entry because they're really similar. But here comes the first problem: There are two 1735 versions listed, but only one of them is year V. The other one is year VI. That VI version COULD be KM# 869. It's hard to tell because the KM number just doesn't give enough information. It could very well be a type of a different version.
And that is the 1736 version in the entry, aka KM# 880 which has a completely different reverse lettering and obverse motive and therefore should definitely get its own entry. The other possibility for the 1735 VI version could be KM# 868 which also has a different reverse lettering which should get its own page.
And finally, the two 1738 versions are KM# 887 which also are completely different coins.

So to summarize: This entry is a huge mess, only people with special rights can delete year lines => to these people: please fix that stuff. I don't know how you want to do it, but please do something.

Hmmm... I see what you mean.

With these main design details (Papal arms obverse, and LVMEN RECTIS / date in cartouche rev) I can also only find:
1734 Anno V, KM854 = Muntoni 13
1735 Anno V, KM866 = Muntoni 14
After this, I can't find anything in acsearch with this design. But maybe the later dates are rare ..

I agree that there are many other scudi from this reign that should not be in this entry due to more major differences in design. As you say, for 1735 Anno VI, we can find Papal arms obv, but LABOR ADITVS in cartouche rev (I suspect this is KM868).

I think what needs to be done is for someone to verify that the 3d and 4th lines in the date table are valid. Which will take a better catalog than KM.

Edit: I can also verify that Muntoni 9, 10, 11 and 12 do NOT pertain to this type, and should be removed from the catalog references. I have submitted this modification, and added the KM854 reference, which I think is the best that can be done without ability to remove a date line.

It looks like the clearly incorrect date lines and catalog references have now been removed.

I removed those clearly incorrect date lines and referee removed references. I am however unsure about those other lines. Should only 1734 V stay on this page as KM# 854?

I think KM has defined three types for small variations in the decoration of the cartouche or frame on the reverse (but all with "LVMEN RECTIS").

KM#854 - 1734 V ... "cartouche with straight sides"
KM#866 - 1735 V ... "cartouche with arched side, seashell at top" This is the photo for the Numista page
KM#867 - 1735 V ... "cartouche as above (KM#866), cherub face at top"

KM#868 - 1736 VI says "inscription date in cartouche" with no photo, which does not allow us to say if it is the same type.

So I think KM#854, 866 and 867 all pertain to this type as we currently have it defined (Papal arms obverse and LVMEN RECTIS in cartouche reverse)

So everything is ok then?

I cannot confirm that the date line 1735 VI is OK for this type, but I also can't say it is wrong.
I don't have a catalog with sufficient information.

Maybe someone with a recent hard copy edition of KM can check, or if someone has Muntoni.

My guess is that this date line does not belong here, and is only correct for the next type with LABOR ADDITVS, but this is only a guess.

For me, the 1736 year line has to be deleted because that's KM# 880 which is here.
The 1735 VI year line is either KM# 869 (above) or KM# 868 here.
The only KM number missing is KM# 867 which could be either added to that page we're talking about (or just transforming that 1735 VI into 1735 V) or getting its own page (each KM number could just get its own entry entirely too.)

1. I agree we should drop 1736 date for this type. I can find no evidence of 1736 except for the bust type scudo
2. I agree with the nice solution to change the 1735 VI line to 1735 V, KM867.

I do not think creation of three entries is the best solution in this case for very small differences.
I will submit this change for the 1735 VI date line, and add the KM wording on the three types in the "Comment" field on the date line.

I just deleted that last line in question. Hopefully, this can be closed.