Need help identifying 1820 German States 16 Gute Grochen coin.

[bottlebum]

I just bought a present for myself. It's neither gem, nor super valuable, but I really like it. It's coming all the way from Switzerland, and should be arriving on Monday. Until I found this coin, I never even knew that the type existed.

Picture is borrowed from the seller. What do you all think? To me, it appears to be genuine?? It was sold as a KM-124, but I believe it to be a KM-122. I wish that I could find an image of a KM-122 to help in verifying.

 

 

 

Edited to add: I found images of an NGC graded KM-122 (link below), and my coin is not a match. The reverse does not match. Also, on the obverse of my coin there is no dot after "Mark". I've come to the conclusion that none of the 5 varieties of the 1820, German States, 16 Gute Groschen coins, pictured in the World Coin Price Guide, are a match to mine. Are there more varieties that are not in the guide? Makes me wonder if I might have an unknown variety?

Link to World Coin Price Guide: https://www.ngccoin.com/price-guide/world/search/1/?country=GERMAN+STATES&region=HANNOVER&denom=16+Gute+Groschen&date=1820&catalogInitials=&catalogNumber=

 

NGC graded, Hannover KM-122 found on ebay:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Hannover-Germany-1820-16-Gute-Groschen-NGC-MS61/332609055535?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649

 

Any help in identifying my coin will be greatly appreciated.

Happy hunting, everyone!

 

[bottlebum]

Found another NGC graded KM-122 that more closely resembles my coin. One difference that I can see is that on the obverse, this one has the dot after "Mark", which mine does not have. Same reverse as mine: 

Very confusing to say the least. How can two different coins have the same catalog number? I most certainly am no expert, and am trying to learn.

 

Another (not graded) that is an exact match w-mine, but there is no "KM" #: 

Edit to add: Oops, it's not an exact match. Notice the "silb." on the reverse. Not the same as the "silber" on mine.

Forget collecting the whole series. Looks to me like just focusing on the 1820 varieties could be a quite the challenge! Hah!

 

 

 

[bottlebum]

NGC is calling both of these coins a KM-122. Shouldn't they have different catalog #'s? Am I over thinking all of this?

 

[bottlebum]

I'm beginning to feel neglected ....

[JKK]

You shouldn't. Some of us started to compose significant replies, came to realize you knew more about the subject of this particular coin than we did, understood therefore that we had nothing substantive to contribute and didn't want to tell you things you already knew (I know I particularly hate that, especially when someone shows they didn't bother to read carefully), and thus elected not to post.

Maybe NGC screwed up. Maybe Krause screwed up. Maybe, judging by the copy of Krause I pored over for fifteen minutes trying to answer your question, when they redid the numbers they also left out a variety to save space. I think you already know of those possibilities. Thus, I at least don't have any substantive useful new information. I'm sorry.

[bottlebum]

2 hours ago, JKK said:

You shouldn't. Some of us started to compose significant replies, came to realize you knew more about the subject of this particular coin than we did, understood therefore that we had nothing substantive to contribute and didn't want to tell you things you already knew (I know I particularly hate that, especially when someone shows they didn't bother to read carefully), and thus elected not to post.

Maybe NGC screwed up. Maybe Krause screwed up. Maybe, judging by the copy of Krause I pored over for fifteen minutes trying to answer your question, when they redid the numbers they also left out a variety to save space. I think you already know of those possibilities. Thus, I at least don't have any substantive useful new information. I'm sorry.

No need to apologize, JKK. I appreciate the fact that you took the time to reaffirm my thoughts, exactly. I'm considering sending the coin in to NGC just to see what happens. Maybe it will come back as as a KM-122.1 or something of the sorts? My hope is that maybe NGC will chime in with some information.

Thank you, JKK. - Bill

[JKK]

I have zero familiarity with sending coins to grading services, but I have some familiarity with people.

In theory, every grading service would examine every coin beginning from scratch and with a stern, skeptical eye for whether it precisely fits known existing types, or is something new. In theory, too, I wouldn't have to watch contractors like hawks to make sure they do all their work and do not introduce new problems through shortcuts that make their jobs easier.

As you have doubtless observed in life, theory is so titled for a reason. It isn't often reality.

In practice, humans being human, wherever you send it, if you send it with no discussion of the known varieties or articulation of the question, someone is very likely to jump to a conclusion without exhaustive scrutiny. Also, human organizations being made of humans, if designating it a certain way will open a can of worms for past IDs, it's possible someone will choose not to do that.

So if I sent it in, I'd send in a digest of the question and explain where it doesn't seem to fit the currently published designations. That way, if a human were to have a human moment, the explanation might prompt otherwise.

[bottlebum]

28 minutes ago, JKK said:

I have zero familiarity with sending coins to grading services, but I have some familiarity with people.

In theory, every grading service would examine every coin beginning from scratch and with a stern, skeptical eye for whether it precisely fits known existing types, or is something new. In theory, too, I wouldn't have to watch contractors like hawks to make sure they do all their work and do not introduce new problems through shortcuts that make their jobs easier.

As you have doubtless observed in life, theory is so titled for a reason. It isn't often reality.

In practice, humans being human, wherever you send it, if you send it with no discussion of the known varieties or articulation of the question, someone is very likely to jump to a conclusion without exhaustive scrutiny. Also, human organizations being made of humans, if designating it a certain way will open a can of worms for past IDs, it's possible someone will choose not to do that.

So if I sent it in, I'd send in a digest of the question and explain where it doesn't seem to fit the currently published designations. That way, if a human were to have a human moment, the explanation might prompt otherwise.

Point understood, and well taken, JKK. In fact, I planned on doing just as you have suggested.

I really do appreciate the time that you have devoted to helping me with my inquiry. All the best to you and yours.

HH - Bill

[coinsandmedals]

Like JKK I too tried to investigate this coin, but I also had nothing substantive to add to the conversation. It is not uncommon to find typos and omissions in Krause. It is an interesting coin and I have really enjoyed reading the posts. NGC is usually very good about stuff like this. If you submit your information along with the coin, I am confident they will provide an intelligent response.

[JKK]

2 hours ago, bottlebum said:

Point understood, and well taken, JKK. In fact, I planned on doing just as you have suggested.

I really do appreciate the time that you have devoted to helping me with my inquiry. All the best to you and yours.

HH - Bill

Likewise, Bill. I will be interested to see what the outcome says. Great holidays to you and yours as well.

[bottlebum]

8 hours ago, coinsandmedals said:

Like JKK I too tried to investigate this coin, but I also had nothing substantive to add to the conversation. It is not uncommon to find typos and omissions in Krause. It is an interesting coin and I have really enjoyed reading the posts. NGC is usually very good about stuff like this. If you submit your information along with the coin, I am confident they will provide an intelligent response.

 

6 hours ago, JKK said:

Likewise, Bill. I will be interested to see what the outcome says. Great holidays to you and yours as well.

I'll be sure to update this thread with any further findings and grade results.

Merry Christmas to the both of you, and thank you. 

[Conder101]

On 12/21/2018 at 10:09 AM, JKK said:

Maybe NGC screwed up. Maybe Krause screwed up.

Most likely neither one screwed up.  The problem here is the same as you see with early US coins.  The dies were all made by hand so even within the same design type every die is going to be a little different.  With a dot without a dot, the leaving out of a letter or two because they got the spacing wrong etc.  With early coins it can sometimes be difficult to decide what is a different type and what is just a variation within a type.

By the way the reverse in the first slabbed piece you showed that you said was the same as on your coin also is not the same.  Note the position of the I in silber relative to he M above it on your coin and the slabbed one.  Different positions.  Anther case of a different hand made die.

[bottlebum]

1 hour ago, Conder101 said:

Most likely neither one screwed up.  The problem here is the same as you see with early US coins.  The dies were all made by hand so even within the same design type every die is going to be a little different.  With a dot without a dot, the leaving out of a letter or two because they got the spacing wrong etc.  With early coins it can sometimes be difficult to decide what is a different type and what is just a variation within a type.

By the way the reverse in the first slabbed piece you showed that you said was the same as on your coin also is not the same.  Note the position of the I in silber relative to he M above it on your coin and the slabbed one.  Different positions.  Anther case of a different hand made die.

Yeah, I've been doing a lot of searching, and comparing of different examples of the coin. I can't believe all of the differences that I am finding. I think it's really interesting. I just may have found an area of coin collecting that I would really like to focus on. I'd like to see just how many different (major) variations I can find, even if some examples are just pictures.

My collecting has always been very haphazard. Just never could find anything that really interested me, and that I felt like focusing on. Well, at least nothing that I could afford. If money wasn't a concern, I'd be focusing on US Colonials.

Thanks for your reply. - Bill

[JKK]

1 hour ago, Conder101 said:

Most likely neither one screwed up.  The problem here is the same as you see with early US coins.  The dies were all made by hand so even within the same design type every die is going to be a little different.  With a dot without a dot, the leaving out of a letter or two because they got the spacing wrong etc.  With early coins it can sometimes be difficult to decide what is a different type and what is just a variation within a type.

By the way the reverse in the first slabbed piece you showed that you said was the same as on your coin also is not the same.  Note the position of the I in silber relative to he M above it on your coin and the slabbed one.  Different positions.  Anther case of a different hand made die.

Perhaps, but at some point a die difference becomes a subtype. And if what is displayed doesn't answer to Krause's descriptions, then maybe Krause is missing something. And if a grading service identified something by criteria that don't match what is otherwise understood, they could have whiffed.