1856 Belgian 5 centimes: what (or where) is the point? [solved]

Hi all,

despite having the coin identified in the title already (N#268), I have a question about a Belgian 5 centimes coin. Belgian coins confuse me, so this may be a silly question, but here it goes:

According to the catalogue there are two types from 1856 of this coin, KM#5.1 Signature with point, and KM#5.2 Signature without point:

Now I just got this coin, as far as I can tell with a point:

Just, is that the point referred to here? Looking for KM#5.1 on the NGC catalogue (not having anything else at hand), it seems to be. But then again there is no entry there for KM#5.2 for that year at all? As said, Belgian coins confuse me …

Many thanks in advance!

53th0s

 Point = Dot [after signature] 

as mentioned on that page link. 

And yes your picture is with dot. 

The KM catalogue is a system that allows a cataloger such discretion. 

That little dot might be in some dies, and not in other dies, and so this cataloger made a distinction, that you have encountered.

In other catalogues, of other countries, in other eras, you would perhaps not find such a distinction. 

Rather, such a fine distinction could easily be believed  a filled die error and ignored. 

None the less, the work is done, and we are thankful to the cataloger for his dedication.

End of lecture,

Breakout sessions will discuss when and how to prepare change requests to KM. 

good luck with that.

My catalog only mentions 1856 with point.

As a note every year is possible without point, but 1856 has not yet been reported.

Newtony

My catalog only mentions 1856 with point.

As a note every year is possible without point, but 1856 has not yet been reported.

 

Then I really don't understand the KM designation and frequencies reported on Numista … I'll just take it as further indication that Belgium wants to be confusing 🤣

53th0s

Newtony

My catalog only mentions 1856 with point.

As a note every year is possible without point, but 1856 has not yet been reported.

 

Then I really don't understand the KM designation and frequencies reported on Numista … I'll just take it as further indication that Belgium wants to be confusing 🤣

Probably just an “error” when numista took over the coins from SCWC? I've found NO references to an 1856 km5.2 (without dot) after two hours search on internet, so personally I would like to see the faulty line in numista disappear.

Sjoelund

53th0s

Newtony

My catalog only mentions 1856 with point.

As a note every year is possible without point, but 1856 has not yet been reported.

 

Then I really don't understand the KM designation and frequencies reported on Numista … I'll just take it as further indication that Belgium wants to be confusing 🤣

Probably just an “error” when numista took over the coins from SCWC? I've found NO references to an 1856 km5.2 (without dot) after two hours search on internet, so personally I would like to see the faulty line in numista disappear.

Where do the frequencies come from? 19% for the apparently non-existent version without point but only 0.4% for the one with point. 

53th0s

Sjoelund

53th0s

Newtony

My catalog only mentions 1856 with point.

As a note every year is possible without point, but 1856 has not yet been reported.

 

Then I really don't understand the KM designation and frequencies reported on Numista … I'll just take it as further indication that Belgium wants to be confusing 🤣

Probably just an “error” when numista took over the coins from SCWC? I've found NO references to an 1856 km5.2 (without dot) after two hours search on internet, so personally I would like to see the faulty line in numista disappear.

Where do the frequencies come from? 19% for the apparently non-existent version without point but only 0.4% for the one with point. 

The frequencies for 1856 (KM# 5.1 and KM# 5.2) are a Numista mistake.  Originally this coin page did not have the KM# 5.2 year line.  There was only one 1856 year line.  Everybody with a 1856 coin entered it on that year line.  Sometime later a new year line was added (KM# 5.2 for “without point”).   Members on the original year line were put in the “without point” year line creating the bogus frequencies.  This screenshot of the coin page is from Jan. 2022 showing only the one 1856 (KM# 5.1 “with point”) year line with a frequency of 18%.

What's more SCWC (KM catalog) does not include 1856 in their KM# 5.2.

Sjoelund is correct, 1856 “without point” probably does not exist and that faulty line should disappear and members moved back to where they were.  

I'll request to have the years combined. The thing is that both Morin (2012) as Aernout (2019) claim that only the coin without period exists, although, as Sjoelund, I can't find any pictures of this type either. If somebody can send me pictures with a signature without period I can add another year line with proof on the page.