Belgium: 1 centime 1882FR, km33

N#517

the middle line with a round O in ROI, is not valid, since it doesn't state if the coin is with a thick 1.38mm or a thin 1.17mm flan! My coins with both flans are with an oval O in ROI!

I suggest to take that line out or just write "no proof found 01/01/2022". If nobody has delivered an image of a round O in the next 2 years, then just eliminate the line….

According to my catalogue, there is no thin or thick flan and no round O in ROI.

Shouldn't a thin flan coin weigh less than a thick flan coin? I've measured and weighted the ones I have and sometimes the thicker coins weigh less than the thinner ones. Based on this I believe there is no difference and thus for 1882 there is only one yearlines (my opinion only!)

The thick 1.38mm weighs in at  2.09 g, the thin 1.17mm at 1.89 g!

The thin one is mentioned in SCWC as km33.2. The 33.1 and 33.2 in SCWC are both 2.0 g!

I have one of each, so I lean to the truth of SCWC catalog for once. For the 34.1 and 34.2 (Flamish) you also have two flans. Thos I do NOT have!

The round O in ROI I haven't seen mentioned anywhere.

Found this in an older catalog:

This is the catalog:

So, I understand the catalog like this:

What do you think?

You understood correct!

I've never seen the round “O”, but my experience is limited at best…

How do we ask all owners to verify, if they have round “O” and specially if it's connected to a narrow or a wide flan? Most collectors don't have a caliper with 0.01mm accuracy, so we'll probably never know.  

On top of that, what is a round “O” really, just a subjective expression! We need PROOF, don't we?

Newtony

You understood correct!

 

I've never seen the round “O”, but my experience is limited at best…

Just going back to the title:

Belgium: 2 centimes 1882FR, km33

KM#33 is a 1 centime, so do we really talk about the 2 centimes coin, OR NOT? We cannot, since there is no 2 centimes in 1882!

Please modify the title of this topic. 

Oh, boy, I started the thread and I have now changed the title, sorry? Memory slipping.

Oh my 🤭

I never even noticed the 2 in the title…

I just assumed it must be the 1 centime, because as you noticed, there is no 2 cent from 1882 😆

As one catalog mentions it and 26 people added it to their collections, I'd rather keep the yearline; hopefully we'll soon have the possibility to attach photo to yearlines :-)