Options
Krause Errata List (please crosscheck my list and add your own entries when you have time).
lordmarcovan
Posts: 43,218 ✭✭✭✭✭
KRAUSE ERRATA
I've compiled a list of Krause errata and omissions in the newer editions, and am keeping a running list as I find them. Please take the time to check my list and correct me if I am mistaken anywhere (even somebody pointing out a list of mistakes can make mistakes of his own, or miss something, particularly when dealing with giant 2,000+ page tomes!) If you notice the same errors and omissions as I did, let me know. If you have found some on your own, here's the place to post them, so we can bring them to Krause Publications' attention. When noting errors and omissions, be sure to post what edition you are using, as the error might have been cleared up in a subsequent issue. (However, from the pattern I see emerging here, the newer editions are the ones you need to worry about the most.)
Please take the time to list any errors you have discovered on your own. Be sure to cite which edition and section. Maybe I should've used page numbers in my citations, to make these easier to find.
GENERAL COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE NEWER ISSUES/FORMATS:
I don't see any more cross-references like "Ceylon, see Sri Lanka" anymore. Perhaps the need for many of these has been done away with: i.e., Ceylon is now listed under Ceylon and Sri Lanka under Sri Lanka, maybe), but if one is not sure exactly where to look, the lack of these handy cross-references makes it more difficult.
There are FAR too many abbreviations alluding to mintmarks, privy marks, and varieties in the value sections of the listings without any explanation anywhere!
What happened to the Millimeter Size Chart (circle charts)?
THESE NEW EDITIONS ARE SO SLOPPY THAT I’VE HAD TO KEEP MY OLD ONES TO CROSS-CHECK THEM BY! Now, I realize what a huge undertaking the compilation and editing of these catalogs must be, and some of my observations below might seem like mere nitpicks (and some are merely that), but there are also some huge, glaring omissions and errors here, including a few real howlers. The Krause catalogs are still a very useful tool but have become less reliable, it would seem.
18TH CENTURY, 3RD EDITION
FRENCH GUIANA (COLONY OF CAYENNE):
The introductory text mentions the 1780s 2-Sous coins, but doesn't list them or any other coins for French Guiana. The entire section consists of a small block of introductory text and one "peifort" (sic) of a 1789-A 10-centimes piece. If the 2-sous pieces are listed somewhere else, there is no cross-reference.
ITALIAN STATES (NAPLES & SICILY):
The KM(C)#49 8-Tornesi pieces (1796-97) are listed with the “P//R G” initials after the dates, but the coins (including the plate coin in the book), show it to be a “C” instead of a “G” in those initials. (P//R C). Furthermore, the array of assayer’s initials, mint official’s initials, and engraver’s initials is confusing, but I suppose one can’t blame Krause for that- they didn’t make the coins. I do think they could make the explanatory text a bit clearer, though.
19TH CENTURY, 4TH EDITION
COLOMBIA:
1886(w) 5-Centavos (KM183.2) listed twice, once with inexpensive circ. values, the second time with just a line that says "Value: 165". Presumably this second line is for a proof value, but the text does not explain this. (This sort of thing happens many times throughout the catalog).
FRANCE:
1896A 5-Centime piece has two lines of values, one dramatically higher than the other. Presumably for different privy marks, but both lines just say "1896A", with no abbreviations or other notes about what separates the two different varieties.
GERMANY-EMPIRE:
2-Pfennig (KM2) has a VG price column where there was none in the 2nd Edition, and the UNC column filled with dashes. All columns are shifted one to the left of where they should be- in other words, there should be no VG column, prices for VG should be for Fine, Fine prices should be for VF, VF prices should be for XF, and XF prices should be for UNC. I wondered how a VF 1875-F 2-pfennig suddenly jumped from $1.00 in VF in the 2nd Edition, to $30.00 in VF in the 4th Edition! I surmise that dozens if not hundreds of casual dealers suddenly marked their prices up for KM2 coins exponentially! Aside from the shifting of the columns, the prices themselves are unchanged from the 2nd to the 4th Editions. Bad copy-and-paste work?
INDIA (BRITISH):
Typographical error in the introductory text for the KM446.2 Quarter-Anna: “Mubai” should read “Mumbai”.
Another typo in the intro text for the KM447.1 Half-Anna: here they spelled “Mumbai” correctly, but mistyped Madras as “Nadras”.
IRELAND:
In the 1806 farthings, the KM146.2 copper proof restrike is the only coin listed with an engrailed edge, while the KM146.1 circulation strikes are listed as having a plain edge. I just examined three 1806 circulation-strike farthings and all three have engrailed edges.
INDONESIA (SUMATRA):
Where are the listings for 19th Century Sumatran coins, now? They used to be under Indonesia in the 2nd Edition. Now there are no Indonesia listings, and I have tried Netherlands East Indies, Sumatra, and Batavian Republic, etc., all to no avail. The coins in question are an 1815-H copper Duit, formerly listed in the 2nd Edition as KM279(86), and an 1823-S 1/2 Stuiver, formerly KM285.
SWITZERLAND:
No 1879-1900 10-Rappen pieces listed (KM27 in the 2nd Edition).
UNITED STATES:
No half cents listed of any type! (Not Draped Bust, not Classic Head, not Braided Hair). NONE!!!
No 1883 "No Cents" Liberty Nickel listed.
1838-O Seated Dime not listed, though it is mentioned in the introductory text.
No ASW listed for reduced-size Capped Bust quarter (this may not be an error, if the ASW is the same as the large-sized coins).
Incorrect ASW listed for 1854-55 w/Arrows quarters (KM81)?
20TH/21ST CENTURIES, 33RD EDITION (2006)
AUSTRALIA:
No 1901 Victoria sovereigns or half-sovereigns are listed. Listings begin with Edward VII in 1902. True, the 1901 half-sovereigns were rare proof-only issues, but full sovereigns were struck at three Australian mints in 1901.
GREAT BRITAIN:
1940 bronze Penny (KM845) jumped from $12.00 in UNC in the 2004 Edition to $40.00 UNC (and $10.00 XF) in two years? (I remember selling three or four full-red BU 1940-dated coins back in 1992 or 1993 for the then-full catalog UNC price of $8.00!) Are these that hot? Maybe so. Then again, if the rest of the catalog is such a mess, maybe not?
GUYANA (BRITISH GUIANA):
If the new format is to list defunct countries and territories under their old name rather than the current name (for instance, Ceylon is now under Ceylon instead of Sri Lanka and Straits Settlements are listed under Straits Settlements instead of Malaysia), then why is British Guiana still listed under Guyana? Maybe this would be okay if there were cross-references saying something like “British Guiana: see Guyana”, as there used to be, but those are all gone.
INDIA (BRITISH):
The 1901 2-annas coin (KM488 in the old 2004 edition) is apparently unlisted in the 2006 edition.
MEXICO:
The ASW is unlisted for the KM400 5-centavo pieces (1898-1900). Presumably it is the same as the earlier KM398 types, but since the illustration shows it in a larger size (slightly larger than actual size, in fact, with no note stating this), and the copper-nickel KM399 is listed between the two silver types, it might be nice to have the silver weight listed.
PERU:
Apparently no 1-centavo pieces after 1939 are listed. I was looking for the 1960 zinc issue (KM227 in the 2004 catalog).
SPAIN:
None of the first type of Juan Carlos Pesetas of the 1970s are listed in the new edition. A very common type. No doubt many other people noticed them missing.
SWEDEN:
The 1937, 1938, and 1939 bronze 5-Öre pieces list for less in Uncirculated than they do in Very Fine! Presumably that 25-cent valuation is a misplaced decimal in a $25.00 valuation. Or maybe those with Uncirculated pieces should buff them down to VF; they'll be worth more.
SWITZERLAND:
There is a typographical error that is repeated in the heading at the top of every page in the section. It misspells Switzerland as “SWITZLERLAND” (sic).
THAILAND:
KM#Y-77 50 Satang (1/2 Baht) from BE 2493 (1950) went from $1.75 XF and $5.00 UNC in the 2004 catalog to $20.00 UNC and no prices in the circulated grades in the 2006! Surely this can’t be right?
UNITED STATES:
-Jefferson nickels start with the wartime silver issues (KM192a), then resume with the 1946-2003 (KMA192) issues, but the early dates (1938-42 standard composition) are all omitted.
I've compiled a list of Krause errata and omissions in the newer editions, and am keeping a running list as I find them. Please take the time to check my list and correct me if I am mistaken anywhere (even somebody pointing out a list of mistakes can make mistakes of his own, or miss something, particularly when dealing with giant 2,000+ page tomes!) If you notice the same errors and omissions as I did, let me know. If you have found some on your own, here's the place to post them, so we can bring them to Krause Publications' attention. When noting errors and omissions, be sure to post what edition you are using, as the error might have been cleared up in a subsequent issue. (However, from the pattern I see emerging here, the newer editions are the ones you need to worry about the most.)
Please take the time to list any errors you have discovered on your own. Be sure to cite which edition and section. Maybe I should've used page numbers in my citations, to make these easier to find.
GENERAL COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE NEWER ISSUES/FORMATS:
I don't see any more cross-references like "Ceylon, see Sri Lanka" anymore. Perhaps the need for many of these has been done away with: i.e., Ceylon is now listed under Ceylon and Sri Lanka under Sri Lanka, maybe), but if one is not sure exactly where to look, the lack of these handy cross-references makes it more difficult.
There are FAR too many abbreviations alluding to mintmarks, privy marks, and varieties in the value sections of the listings without any explanation anywhere!
What happened to the Millimeter Size Chart (circle charts)?
THESE NEW EDITIONS ARE SO SLOPPY THAT I’VE HAD TO KEEP MY OLD ONES TO CROSS-CHECK THEM BY! Now, I realize what a huge undertaking the compilation and editing of these catalogs must be, and some of my observations below might seem like mere nitpicks (and some are merely that), but there are also some huge, glaring omissions and errors here, including a few real howlers. The Krause catalogs are still a very useful tool but have become less reliable, it would seem.
18TH CENTURY, 3RD EDITION
FRENCH GUIANA (COLONY OF CAYENNE):
The introductory text mentions the 1780s 2-Sous coins, but doesn't list them or any other coins for French Guiana. The entire section consists of a small block of introductory text and one "peifort" (sic) of a 1789-A 10-centimes piece. If the 2-sous pieces are listed somewhere else, there is no cross-reference.
ITALIAN STATES (NAPLES & SICILY):
The KM(C)#49 8-Tornesi pieces (1796-97) are listed with the “P//R G” initials after the dates, but the coins (including the plate coin in the book), show it to be a “C” instead of a “G” in those initials. (P//R C). Furthermore, the array of assayer’s initials, mint official’s initials, and engraver’s initials is confusing, but I suppose one can’t blame Krause for that- they didn’t make the coins. I do think they could make the explanatory text a bit clearer, though.
19TH CENTURY, 4TH EDITION
COLOMBIA:
1886(w) 5-Centavos (KM183.2) listed twice, once with inexpensive circ. values, the second time with just a line that says "Value: 165". Presumably this second line is for a proof value, but the text does not explain this. (This sort of thing happens many times throughout the catalog).
FRANCE:
1896A 5-Centime piece has two lines of values, one dramatically higher than the other. Presumably for different privy marks, but both lines just say "1896A", with no abbreviations or other notes about what separates the two different varieties.
GERMANY-EMPIRE:
2-Pfennig (KM2) has a VG price column where there was none in the 2nd Edition, and the UNC column filled with dashes. All columns are shifted one to the left of where they should be- in other words, there should be no VG column, prices for VG should be for Fine, Fine prices should be for VF, VF prices should be for XF, and XF prices should be for UNC. I wondered how a VF 1875-F 2-pfennig suddenly jumped from $1.00 in VF in the 2nd Edition, to $30.00 in VF in the 4th Edition! I surmise that dozens if not hundreds of casual dealers suddenly marked their prices up for KM2 coins exponentially! Aside from the shifting of the columns, the prices themselves are unchanged from the 2nd to the 4th Editions. Bad copy-and-paste work?
INDIA (BRITISH):
Typographical error in the introductory text for the KM446.2 Quarter-Anna: “Mubai” should read “Mumbai”.
Another typo in the intro text for the KM447.1 Half-Anna: here they spelled “Mumbai” correctly, but mistyped Madras as “Nadras”.
IRELAND:
In the 1806 farthings, the KM146.2 copper proof restrike is the only coin listed with an engrailed edge, while the KM146.1 circulation strikes are listed as having a plain edge. I just examined three 1806 circulation-strike farthings and all three have engrailed edges.
INDONESIA (SUMATRA):
Where are the listings for 19th Century Sumatran coins, now? They used to be under Indonesia in the 2nd Edition. Now there are no Indonesia listings, and I have tried Netherlands East Indies, Sumatra, and Batavian Republic, etc., all to no avail. The coins in question are an 1815-H copper Duit, formerly listed in the 2nd Edition as KM279(86), and an 1823-S 1/2 Stuiver, formerly KM285.
SWITZERLAND:
No 1879-1900 10-Rappen pieces listed (KM27 in the 2nd Edition).
UNITED STATES:
No half cents listed of any type! (Not Draped Bust, not Classic Head, not Braided Hair). NONE!!!
No 1883 "No Cents" Liberty Nickel listed.
1838-O Seated Dime not listed, though it is mentioned in the introductory text.
No ASW listed for reduced-size Capped Bust quarter (this may not be an error, if the ASW is the same as the large-sized coins).
Incorrect ASW listed for 1854-55 w/Arrows quarters (KM81)?
20TH/21ST CENTURIES, 33RD EDITION (2006)
AUSTRALIA:
No 1901 Victoria sovereigns or half-sovereigns are listed. Listings begin with Edward VII in 1902. True, the 1901 half-sovereigns were rare proof-only issues, but full sovereigns were struck at three Australian mints in 1901.
GREAT BRITAIN:
1940 bronze Penny (KM845) jumped from $12.00 in UNC in the 2004 Edition to $40.00 UNC (and $10.00 XF) in two years? (I remember selling three or four full-red BU 1940-dated coins back in 1992 or 1993 for the then-full catalog UNC price of $8.00!) Are these that hot? Maybe so. Then again, if the rest of the catalog is such a mess, maybe not?
GUYANA (BRITISH GUIANA):
If the new format is to list defunct countries and territories under their old name rather than the current name (for instance, Ceylon is now under Ceylon instead of Sri Lanka and Straits Settlements are listed under Straits Settlements instead of Malaysia), then why is British Guiana still listed under Guyana? Maybe this would be okay if there were cross-references saying something like “British Guiana: see Guyana”, as there used to be, but those are all gone.
INDIA (BRITISH):
The 1901 2-annas coin (KM488 in the old 2004 edition) is apparently unlisted in the 2006 edition.
MEXICO:
The ASW is unlisted for the KM400 5-centavo pieces (1898-1900). Presumably it is the same as the earlier KM398 types, but since the illustration shows it in a larger size (slightly larger than actual size, in fact, with no note stating this), and the copper-nickel KM399 is listed between the two silver types, it might be nice to have the silver weight listed.
PERU:
Apparently no 1-centavo pieces after 1939 are listed. I was looking for the 1960 zinc issue (KM227 in the 2004 catalog).
SPAIN:
None of the first type of Juan Carlos Pesetas of the 1970s are listed in the new edition. A very common type. No doubt many other people noticed them missing.
SWEDEN:
The 1937, 1938, and 1939 bronze 5-Öre pieces list for less in Uncirculated than they do in Very Fine! Presumably that 25-cent valuation is a misplaced decimal in a $25.00 valuation. Or maybe those with Uncirculated pieces should buff them down to VF; they'll be worth more.
SWITZERLAND:
There is a typographical error that is repeated in the heading at the top of every page in the section. It misspells Switzerland as “SWITZLERLAND” (sic).
THAILAND:
KM#Y-77 50 Satang (1/2 Baht) from BE 2493 (1950) went from $1.75 XF and $5.00 UNC in the 2004 catalog to $20.00 UNC and no prices in the circulated grades in the 2006! Surely this can’t be right?
UNITED STATES:
-Jefferson nickels start with the wartime silver issues (KM192a), then resume with the 1946-2003 (KMA192) issues, but the early dates (1938-42 standard composition) are all omitted.
0
Comments
1940 bronze Penny (KM845) jumped from $12.00 in UNC in the 2004 Edition to $40.00 UNC (and $10.00 XF) in two years? (I remember selling three or four full-red BU 1940-dated coins back in 1992 or 1993 for the then-full catalog UNC price of $8.00!) Are these that hot? Maybe so. Then again, if the rest of the catalog is such a mess, maybe not?
Spink also lists a correspondingly higher value for that date.
The 2005 predecimal.com catalog lists George VI pennies as follows:
So perhaps not the same disparity as in Krause, but a higher price for that date nonetheless...
1/2 Cents
U.S. Revenue Stamps
Well, just Love coins, period.
<< <i>Just a note on Great Britain 1940 penny: single exergue line type is what they are referring to, and Spink has this listed at 40 GBP or over 72 USD whilst the more common double exergue line is at 12 GBP. >>
Well, if that is the case, they should indicate it. I remember the first time somebody emailed me about an auction and asked me about which exergue line variety my coin was, and I had no clue. I don't recall ever seeing anything about any of these varieties in Krause. I knew what exergue lines were, but that was the extent of my knowledge. I was (and remain) pretty clueless about many such varieties in British coins.
Of course, Krause is but a general overall reference and I understand they could not possibly go into die variety minutiae with every series from every country.
If the price has indeed spiked on the 1940 Brit penny, and it's not some erroneous listing, I suppose I should remove that from my list. I wasn't sure if it was right or not. After discovering shifted price columns (see my note on the 19th Century German Imperial section), I wasn't sure.
The country did not change their name for one year. Myanmar changed their name and China has
fun teasing American journalists by pretending to change the name of Peking every few months,
but El Salvador has been El Salvador for centuries.
I can't imagine what Krause believe gives them right to change history and spelling and to do
it from year to year without rhyme nor reason.
More disturbing is the way they've split up denominations and omitted so many photos. This makes
finding listings quickly problematical.
Even misprints and errors are getting out of hand. There are even misplaced pages in the new edition.
It seems every time they correct an error they create two more. And they have editorial policy which
leads to errors and confusion.
It may be great for those who only collect certain eras but for those whose collecting interests span multiple eras it sucks moose testicles.
The listings for France are especially a pain in the a$$.
It used to be the you could flip to a country and by glancing at the denomination on the page, know whether you had to flip forward or backward, and by approximately how many pages. Now you have to think how many kingdoms or rulers are between where you opened to and where you need to get to. It REALLY slows down navigation through the book.
Bottom line: It's absolutely moronic and hideously stupid!
1/2 Cents
U.S. Revenue Stamps
The 1940 exergue count may be an example of this as there are many such citations. Their prices on this particular coin may be a case of averaging.
Well, just Love coins, period.
Maybe we should kick-off a "Coin-O-Pedia" on the lines of WikiPedia (it would be great if PCGS hosted something like that) where experts like those on this forum could edit details about coins and submit pictures, and peer reviews would catch/correct errors.
--Boman.
<< <i>Wonder when we'll have Krause on the net in a searchable, hyperlinked format.
Maybe we should kick-off a "Coin-O-Pedia" on the lines of WikiPedia (it would be great if PCGS hosted something like that) where experts like those on this forum could edit details about coins and submit pictures, and peer reviews would catch/correct errors.
--Boman. >>
I actually own the domains Numispedia.com/net/org and have been brainstorming this for some time. I've considered using MediaWiki (what runs Wikipedia), but I'd like to have a lot of other, more interactive features as well. I just haven't had the time for it! (Plus, I haven't been able to enlist any helpers yet--not that I've actively done much searching or advertising.)
Anyhow, to keep the thread on-track, I still use the 1993 Krause that I bought from LM so many moons ago as my primary reference. Yeah, the values are out of date on some of the hotter stuff, but not for as much as you'd imagine, and it is a heckuva lot more reliable on the raw data (and easier to use!). So consider that my endorsement of LM's laudable project here! FIX KRAUSE!
My wantlist & references
Any improvement? Anyone using this catalog?
Mexico- Revolutionary, page 1454-
Pictures for KM764 (Puebla 20 centavos, copper) and KM765 (Sinaloa 20 centavos, cast silver) are reversed.
General Complaints
The "Instant Identifier" seems to be becoming less and less useful - particularly in the 18th and 17th C volumes. They've taken the shortcut of using line-drawings rather than closeups from coins, but this can have little or no bearing on how the arms actually appear on the coin. Also, only German arms seem to be listed, so if your unknown coin is actually Swiss, Italian, or whatever, you won't find it. It could also be made more century-specific eg. German Empire and German New Guinea are both pictured in the 1600's volume.
The denomination index could be more helpful for trying to ID coins with a particular denomination. For example, if a coin's only readable feature is the denomination "stuber"; you look it up in the Denomination Index and it says "German States" - but there's no comprehensive list or breakdown anywhere in the catalogue of which states used that denomination. If that would clutter up the Index, then a more specific breakdown of monetary systems, along with a century-specific sub-index of states that used those systems, could be given in the introduction to the German States section.
Specific Complaints
17th and 18th C. FRANCE - more pictures are a must for distinguishing the multitude of denominations and varieties.
20th C.(2005), HUNGARY (Communist and Post-Communist): the listings for the 1 forint coin are in the wrong place; they've put them where a 1 filler coin would be. Hungary didn't issue a 1 filler coin, which probably confused them (a bit nitpicky, but still confusing - you might think 1 forint coins don't exist without a thorough search).
20th C.(2005), MALDIVE ISLANDS - something funny going on here. I've got a 5 laari 1970 in nickel-brass, quite well-worn so its not likely a mint error. Krause lists the 5 laari 1970 (#69) as aluminium, but the picture for the one listed for 1960 (#45, which is given as nickel-brass) clearly says "1970".
20th C.(2005 and earlier editions), POLAND - can they please list the Austro-German Regency 1 fenig 1917, so silly saps like me don't embarrass themselves in the future? Other "not officially released, most were lost" coins are listed in Krause, even with a brief explanatory note eg. the Keeling-Cocos 150 rupees.
20th C.(2005), SERBIA - the modern (2003) coins are jumbled up among the old pre-WWI Kingdom coins. If you're going to split by government, this government needs splitting. Serbia sure ain't a "kingdom" right now.
19th C. (2004), UNITED STATES: Where did the Columbian Exposition commemoratves go? Presumably the 20th C Krause from 2004 had all the US commemoratives listed, to keep them all in one volume - but the 33rd ed. of 20th C omits it.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD.
<< <i>The dancing countries disturb me to no end. They've even listed El Salvador under S in the past.
The country did not change their name for one year. >>
Listing "El Salvador" under "S" (rather than "E") makes perfect sense to me, (just as listing "The United States of America" under "U" instead of "T" makes sense).
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media" - William Colby, former CIA director
20th C.(33rd ed.) AFGHANISTAN - KM#955, 5 afghanis SH1340, is given the wrong date - it should be 1961, not 1921 (same as KM#953 and 954, where SH1340 is translated correctly). Sorting this out would also put the 2 and 5 afghani series into the correct date order (right now they're around the wrong way).
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD.
<< <i>Other "not officially released, most were lost" coins are listed in Krause, even with a brief explanatory note eg. the Keeling-Cocos 150 rupees. >>
Maybe some of this stuff ended up in the "Unusual World Coins" volume? I thumbed through a copy at the bookstore the other night- it was the first time I'd actually had a hands-on encounter with this book, though I'd certainly heard of it. What made me take the book down off the shelf was that it had a coin I own on the cover: one of those privately-issued fantasy "1901" Irish "patterns". I was shocked to see it cataloged for 40 bucks!
Hmm. I might have to get a copy of that. Flipping through it for maybe three minutes in the bookstore, I found at least three or four things that had stumped me in the past.
1/2 Cents
U.S. Revenue Stamps
<quote>
INDONESIA (SUMATRA):
Where are the listings for 19th Century Sumatran coins, now? They used to be under Indonesia in the 2nd Edition. Now there are no Indonesia listings, and I have tried Netherlands East Indies, Sumatra, and Batavian Republic, etc., all to no avail. The coins in question are an 1815-H copper Duit, formerly listed in the 2nd Edition as KM279(86), and an 1823-S 1/2 Stuiver, formerly KM285.
</quote>
Please add these to your list:
INDONESIA (SUMATRA):
I can't find a listing for what I believe is a 1808 1/32 Duit.
I can't find a listing for what I believe is a 1820 1/16 Duit.
-------------------------
Good trades with: DaveN, Tydye, IStillLikeZARCoins, Fjord, Louie, BRdude
Good buys from: LordMarcovan, Aethelred, Ajaan, PrivateCoinCollector, LindeDad, Peaceman, Spoon, DrJules, jjrrww
Good sale to: Nicholasz219
it used to be listed in the old catalogues: it was C#1 in Craig, KM#Tn1 in my old Krause. Unfortunately, I disposed of my Craig and older Krauses when I upgraded, because I didn't think I'd need them anymore (and they were taking up way too much space). Nnnnnngh!
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD.
<< <i>Unfortunately, I disposed of my Craig and older Krauses when I upgraded, because I didn't think I'd need them anymore (and they were taking up way too much space). Nnnnnngh! >>
You don't know how close I came to doing just that very same thing. Only by a freak chance did I start noticing these discrepancies and held on to all my older editions.
The four older volumes were taking up too much space. Now I have EIGHT taking up space.
I had already promised some of my older ones to folks and had to welsh on my promises and say, "sorry, I have to keep them since the new volumes are so untrustworthy".
19th century (4th ed.) (coinpictures noticed this one) Philippines, Spanish rule, decimal series: The 20 centimos (old KM 149) is gone. Just gone. And I have an 1883 one, too! Are there any other denominations missing? There's nothing listed between the 10¢ and the peso.
20th century (33rd ed.) Tuvalu: the incredible shrinking 1¢! They're really 17mm diameter, not 10½mm! Most of the "size errors" I've spotted are too trivial to mention, but this one really stands out!
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD.
17th Century (3rd ed.) - This little Saxon coin. Not sure if it's a deliberate omission or not.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD.
It was (apparently) listed in my 1988 Krause as KM/Y #3. Curiously, my old Yeoman lists it under Arabian States - Tarim, Y#2. There's also a little note in Yeoman saying issued until 1926. I checked 20th century; it's not here either.
The political situation in Yemen in the 19th/20th centuries was complicated. Krause's treatment of the coins isn't helping. Unless Krause has chosen to file this in a really strange place, these coins are gone. I've tried all the logical possibilities: Seiyun (various spellings), Tarim, Quaiti State, Ghurfah, Kathiri, Lahej, Yemen, Aden, Arabia... can't find it.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD.
10th Edition - Collecting World Coins - 1901-2000
I can't find a listing for an 1949B 1 Franc - KM #885a.1.
There's a 1949B in KM #885a.2, but it's the wrong coin.
Big Dave
-------------------------
Good trades with: DaveN, Tydye, IStillLikeZARCoins, Fjord, Louie, BRdude
Good buys from: LordMarcovan, Aethelred, Ajaan, PrivateCoinCollector, LindeDad, Peaceman, Spoon, DrJules, jjrrww
Good sale to: Nicholasz219
I'll have to transcibe my scribbled notes, later. Thanks for bumping this thread- I was gonna add to it soon.
Perhaps somebody should bring this thread to Krause's attention, if nobody already has. I guess that's on me, huh?
Who should I send it to?
I have a trial subscription to the online Numismaster guides and they have a "suggest changes" link built into each page, which is good.
I must say, despite its horrendously expensive pricing structure, I really, really like the convenience of Numismaster. The basic format is good, too, though they have some site navigation issues to tweak. I have not discovered any bugs with the listings there yet, but I have not been using it long. I have noticed quite a few price increases in Numismaster over my 2006 paper edition. If they'll finish the 18th century volume soon and come up with a bit more realistic pricing (and maybe a package bargain for multiple online volumes), I will likely remain a loyal subscriber, since it is so much nicer than lugging around the voluminous paper catalogs. I won't even cry about the lack of the 17th century volume since I use my paperbound one fairly infrequently as it is, and likewise I am not too much concerned with the 21st century issues yet.
Numismaster would be worth the money if you also got a CD with your subscription. As it stands now, one has to pay as much or even more for the digital version than for the paper versions, and the digital ones expire within a year! (Or within a month, as in the case of my trial subscription). I believe I could save/archive the pages to my computer, but I don't know how to do that except for one at a time, and I am not about to save several thousand pages individually, even if it IS legal. (Which I am not sure it is).
Just went and looked at the Numismaster site. Looks okay, but I agree, the pricing is a bit high.
Having been in a lot of sales meetings, this site COULD become a serious cash cow for them.
But, even if I sign up for the FREE stuff, they give you a sample page for coins.
Also, I couldn't care less about keeping my personal information online.
I agree, a CD of all of the latest books in digital format would be sweet,
but there would most likely have to be an update every 3 months.
I'll have to wait and see on this one...
Big Dave
PS - I'm sure there's a way to pull down all of the pages (that a subscriber has access to) at once...
-------------------------
Good trades with: DaveN, Tydye, IStillLikeZARCoins, Fjord, Louie, BRdude
Good buys from: LordMarcovan, Aethelred, Ajaan, PrivateCoinCollector, LindeDad, Peaceman, Spoon, DrJules, jjrrww
Good sale to: Nicholasz219
http://bit.ly/bxi7py
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD.
The new editions do not have the list of denominations, and which countries use each of them.
coinage. It's improbable they've physically switched the cities themselves around
but this in the impression you might get from the change.
The pricing for modern French coins remains the same with twenty or thirty dollar
coins listed at 15c. Modern Irish has sold for far higher prices than they list as well.
They actually lowered some of the modern Portuguese. For all I know this is just-
tified but it seems to me that if they have thousands of coins grossly mispriced then
lowering some high priced Portuguese coins 10 or 20% can take a back seat to it.
They are simply squelching these markets. This not only keeps Americans out of
these great collectibles but it assures that the coins flow out of the country in waves.
Since Americans are still a large segment of all foreign coin markets it damages the
markets themselves.
I'd strongly suggest you not sell anything modern unless you have some means to
check on real market prices. Coins made after WWII are simply not to believed in
this work. Base metal coins before WW II should be checked as well. There are a
lot of old South American coins never seen in unc that list for a dollar or two.
If your Krause is less than seven or eight years old then there's little need to update.
You'll still need to find out the prices anyway.
<< <i> Modern Irish has sold for far higher prices than they list as well. >>
That much hasn't changed since I collected Irish five years ago, then. A lot of that stuff, even modern, has pretty small mintages and a high demand.
<< <i>
<< <i> Modern Irish has sold for far higher prices than they list as well. >>
That much hasn't changed since I collected Irish five years ago, then. A lot of that stuff, even modern, has pretty small mintages and a high demand. >>
The 1983 50P is listed for a couple bucks in unc. My understanding is that
you can't touch one for less than 150.
Another thing to be cautious about is their spread between U and BU. BU
is about equivalent to what we'd call near gem or better. Modern cu/ ni can
be virtually impossible to find in near gem. If you have a nice gem then the
BU price can be especially misleading and just because your coin is fresh and
shiny it might not be BU.
I just noticed that my 2007 20th century edition totally omits the 1901 Australian Victoria sovereigns and half-sovereigns. It starts with Edward VII in 1902. That would have been a real bummer for me, had I mapped out this 1901 Victorian British Empire type set using the 2007 Krause. There would have been two coins needed for the set that I didn't even know existed. (One, actually, since the 1901 half-sovereigns are prohibitively rare and were struck in proof only). The only way I know that is from an older edition of Krause.
I still wonder if there are any Victoria-portrait 1901 issues I missed. I think I got 'em all. I counted 45, across the entire empire.
This is a small but rather silly one. In Cyprus in the 2007 20th Century volume, the first coin listed, the 1901 (Victoria) 1/4 piastre, says Obv: Bust of King Edward VII. OK, yeah, technically Eddie 7 ascended the throne in 1901, but I would imagine 1901-dated coins with his portrait are pretty dang rare if not nonexistent. Hmph.
That is not Henry the son, but Adolphe, reigned 1890-1905, the great grandfather, and first of this family branch to rule Luxembourg.
William III king of the Netherlands and grand duke of Luxembourg died without male issue. By private family treaty of the 1700's, the rule of Luxembourg passed to another branch of the House of Orange. This was Adolph, one time duke of Nassau, 1839-1866, when Prussia asorbed the duchy. This man almost had a record breaking long reign of 1839-1905. Adolph(e) was suceeded by his son, William IV, 1905-1912. Like William III before him, Willian IV daughtered out, but this time as suceeded by his daughters Marie Adelaide, 1912-1919 and Charlotte, 1919-1964, mother and grandmother of the next two grand dukes.
The 1801-1990 World Catalog, under German states- Nassau says the house of Nassau ended in 1866. Should there be a note pointing to Luxembourg? Should Luxembourg have a note pointing to Nassau?