That's the error then? As far as I know one of them has a copper core, which is also visible as a thin line on the edge? I can't verify this now though.
Nonetheless, the letter at the end of the KM number indicates a change in metal content, and as we all know numista must obey the almighty Krause at all costs...
As far as I can believe my magnifying glass, there is no differences on the rim/edge of the coins from both articles.
There is no difference in any inner characteristics of coins, that are mentioned by Tonkin. I believe that his book may be considered as Holy book for Swedish coins (ed. for 2003, p.161)
Or there is a difference, but noone in Sweden cares. Tonkin doesn't do distinctions between the 1 krona 1976-2000 either, nor the 5 öre that changed in 1981 or something. As a Swede, I hadn't heard of these differences till I saw it on Numista. But Krause must have their information from somewhere, it's not something that you just make up.
Quote: "Hamletmaschine"Well, Numista says that one is 9.5 grammes, one 9.6, so some sort of change in the alloy?
Numista is not totally wrong here. I weighed my own coins, and it seems the later coins are 0.05 g heavier. I've made requests to change it to 9.50 g and 9.55 g.
The Schön Catalogue knows only one type of coin. Schön#75 [853]
There are sub-numbers for the Mintmasters and the latest sub number is because they closed their own mint and their coins are produced in Finland since 2008.
But for all subnumbers in the Schön is written:
Cu-Ni clad Ni, 28.5 mm, 9.5 grams.
I can not verify this, because my newest 5 Kronor coin is 1988.
Perhaps all people who have both of these coin types should test them with a magnet and with a scale and a digital calipher and writ the measures down here.
I tested several ones before and after 1992 and they are all magnetic, so they can't be determined by magnetism.
I already put away the coins again before I read the last post. I'll weigh them later this evening when I get back.
Coins always have a tolerance for weight and 9.5 and 9.6 are very close to each other. I have a lot of these coins to compare, so I'll see tonight if determination by weight is a possibility.
In any case, if there is a change of alloy the difference in sub number in Krause is justifiable.
Quote: "androl"Cyprus coins with totally different designs within one coin type are showing that Krause is not the last word on acurracy.
The differences on the Cyprus coins are minor differences, not totally different designs. Krause gave all those differences a subnummer. Whether it is a subnumber or a totally new number, in both cases it's another KM# number. And in the Krause these coins are divided by those subnumbers. Numista puts all the subnumbers in the same coinpage (with the subnumbers at the end of the year line) in stead of dividing those by subnumbers.
I have the following 5 Kronor Schön# 75, KM# 853:
Here are my measures:
1981 (Schön# 75.1 (U))
Diameter: 28.56 mm
Thickness: 2.06 - 2.15 mm
Weight: 9.52 g
Magnetism: soft
1982 (Schön# 75.1 (U))
Diameter: 28.54 - 28.55 mm
Thickness: 2.05 - 2.10 mm
Weight: 9.53 g
Magnetism: soft
1983 (Schön# 75.1 (U))
Diameter: 28.57 - 28.58 mm
Thickness: 2.10 - 2.16 g
Weight: 9.54 g
Magnetism: soft
1984 (Schön# 75.1 (U))
Diameter: 28.57 - 28.59 mm
Thickness: 2.11 - 2.17 mm
Weight: 9.50 g
Magnetism: soft
1988 (Schön# 75.2 (D))
Diameter: 28.54 - 28.56 mm
Thickness: 2.12 - 2.16 mm
Weight: 9.51 g
Magnetism: soft
My only other swedish 5 Kronor is KM# 846, Schön# 66 https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces6195.html
1972 (Schön# 66 (U))
Diameter: 28.59 - 28.60 mm
Thickness: 2.07 - 2.19 mm
Weight: 9.56 g
Magnetism: soft
I think, acceptable differences in diameter, weight and thickness.
It would be useful if other owners of 5 Kronor coins thest theirs in same way.
My measures are not that useful, because i have no "after 1992" which i can measure with the same tools at the same temperature.
I compared 31 pieces KM# 846 with 11 pieces KM# 846a. No noticeable difference in magnetism. For all those coins magnetism is soft.
Concerning weight:
The average weight for the KM# 846 = 9.51 g.
The average weight for the KM# 846a = 9.55 g.
But although there is an average weight difference of 0.04 g between the two KM# numbers, this difference is too little to really determine the KM# number by weight because of the tolerances. When we take a look at the individual measurements we can see the two KM# numbers mingle too much to make a final determination:
9.33 g.: I
9.38 g.: II
9.40 g.: I
9.43 g.: I
9.44 g.: I
9.47 g.: III
9.48 g.: I
9.49 g.: IIII
9.50 g.: II
9.51 g.: II
9.52 g.: II
9.53 g.: I
9.54 g.: IIIIII
9.55 g.: III
9.56 g.: IIII
9.57 g.: II
9.58 g.: IIII
9.60 g.: I
9.61 g.: I
...and I got a reply almost immediately, that Myntboken primarily is done for the public and therefore doesn't deal with all the varieties. No real answer to the question though, but apparently you can't use Tonkin as an authority on Swedish coins.
Collector can not distinguish the difference between these 2 articles by mass.
There is no criteria which will show, whether the coin is of the first or the second group. More over due to the tolerance in mass on this level of about +- 0.06 g (that is 68% of coins differ from the mean mass less then +-0.06 g. and 32% - more) we have coin of ALL dates that are by mass in both groups!
Maybe it is worth to investigate the composition then, and find the way how to verify the statements in the catalogs by common tools, without damaging the coin.
And I like the Tonkin's reply. He really does not care.
Quote: "cyprusalexander"And I like the Tonkin's reply. He really does not care.
To be fair, it wasn't Archie Tonkin himself who replied, but an associate of his.
I have now emailed the Swedish Central Bank, but they sold the minting division to Finland a few years back, and I doubt they care much either, they're too busy lowering interest rates, kicking the can with another round of quantitative easings and blowing up the housing bubble.
it means, that there is no chance to distinguish them by view (outside there is the same Metal Copper-nickel).
But the Post by Essor Prof on 27-Mar-2016, 05:13PM give us experience fact: the coins from both articles have the same reaction on the magnet. It means that SCWC is wrong.
- We have proofs that the suggested difference in mean mass is not the criteria to distinguish coins.
- We have proofs that it is impossible to distinguish coins from both articles by their view
- We have proofs that it is impossible to distinguish these coins by magnet
Does it mean that it is time to unite the articles?
The Swedish Central Bank promised to get back to me in this issue next week. Their expert was away.
But I agree, since they seem to be extremely similar in composition, they could be united with the difference noted in the comment field, once we've established what that difference actually is.
Quote: "Hamletmaschine"The Swedish Central Bank promised to get back to me in this issue next week. Their expert was away.
But I agree, since they seem to be extremely similar in composition, they could be united with the difference noted in the comment field, once we've established what that difference actually is.
I got an answer from the Central Bank. They know nothing of any change in composition in 1993. I got a couple of tables and pdf's with metal composition and stuff, I'll try to translate that later.
I made the change requests.
But only the Schön# have been validated.
whitegandalf answered me. He sayd he is not able to merge the two coin sheets and only Xavier can do this.
Now there are no pending change requests about this sheets.
The year list of the KM#853 sheet is closed. If this would be open, i could add all the years from KM#853a to KM#853 by copy and paste.
Who is able to open the years list?
It is required to present this forum discussion only.
Actually the referee, seems, to agree.
It is enough now for him to instruct the web-designer in which way the unification should be conducted and inform you, as the person, who initialized the modification, how it goes.
Something similar happened with my requests about a Norway's coin. The referee left the modification in the pending status and informed me that he is working on the request.
In another case my request got decision in about 3 or 4 month. But that fact, that it was active, meant, that the Numista team worked on it.
Sorry for adding confusion... 
