medved Latvia (KM#1-3). About the mistake that catalogs and grading companies make every year. 1 1

[medved]

In this article I want to speak about three Latvian coins and it's so-called "varieties": "with..." and "without..."
2 santimi 1922
5 santimi 1922
1 santims 1928

 

 

 

 

First of all, we need to check a few "Standard Catalog of World Coins" (Krause Publications) to find out the differences between editions in coins’ description. There will be a lot of similar information, but we have to do this to see how the information has changed.
1) Standard catalog of World Coins 1972 edition (1972)
No varieties

2) Standard catalog of 20th Century World Coins 1st edition (1981)
1 santims – Varieties exist.
2 santimi – Varieties exist.
5 santimi – No varieties

3) 21st edition (The full correct name of this catalog and year of issue - unknown, only this fragment left on my web site and number of edition)
1 santims – Designers name below ribbon & w/o designers name below ribbon
2 santimi – Designers name on rev. & w/o designers name
5 santimi – Designers name on reverse & w/o designers name

4) 2001 Standard catalog of World Coins 28th edition (2000)
1 santims – Designer’s name below ribbon & w/o designer’s name below ribbon
2 santimi – Designer’s name below ribbon & w/o designer’s name
5 santimi – Designer’s name below ribbon & w/o designer’s name

5) 2004 Standard catalog of World Coins 1901 – present 31st edition (2003)
1 santims – Mint name below ribbon & without designer’s name below ribbon
2 santimi – Mint name below ribbon & without mint name
5 santimi – Mint name below ribbon & without mint name

6) 2007 Standard catalog of World Coins 1901 – present 34th edition (2006)
1 santims – Mint name below ribbon & without designer’s name below ribbon
2 santimi – Mint name below ribbon & without mint name below ribbon
5 santimi – Mint name below ribbon & without name below ribbon

7) 2008 Standard catalog of World Coins 1901 – present 35th edition (2007) (And all next editions)
1 santims – Mint name below ribbon & without mint name below ribbon
2 santimi – Mint name below ribbon & without mint name below ribbon
5 santimi – Mint name below ribbon & without name below ribbon

Now you can see how varieties have appeared in 35 years and the name of the designer has smoothly turned into the name of the mint. Let's figure out what is the “name of the designer” and the “name of the mint”, where is the location of the “names” and the ribbon.
We have a good quality image of pattern 5 santimi 1923 from Heritage auctions with all elements that we need. Let's check the image.

So we can see only one ribbon on this coin - it is on the obverse under the coat of arms with "LATVIJA" (Latvia) inscription inside. Below the ribbon we can see the "HUGUENIN" inscription - this is a Swiss mint name. The full name of the mint is "Huguenin Fréres & Co" (Le Locle, Switzerland). On the reverse we can see "R ZARRIŅŠ" inscription - Rihards Zariņš was the designer of some Latvian coins. You can find information about him on Wikipedia. And this is it, no other marks, names, etc exists on regular Latvian coins 1922 – 1939.

Next our step will be mints for Latvian coins 1922-1939 (This is another mistake of Krause Publications and unfortunately not the last, but now we will speak only about “with” & “without” varieties).
1922 – 1924 coins was minted in Switzerland
1924 – 1935 coins was minted in United Kingdom
1937 – 1939 coins was minted in Latvia
The information about mints easy to get from Bank of Latvia web site, but I have also information from Latvian archives, from Royal Mint Museum and from other official sources. There is the list:
1 santims 1922 - Huguenin Fréres & Co (Le Locle, Switzerland)
1 santims 1924 - Huguenin Fréres & Co (Le Locle, Switzerland)
1 santims 1926 - King’s Norton Metal Company (Birmingham, UK)
1 santims 1928 - King’s Norton Metal Company (Birmingham, UK)
1 santims 1932 - Royal Mint (London, UK) in our days located in Llantrisant, Wales
1 santims 1935 - The Mint Birmingham Limited (Birmingham, UK) (one half of the mintage) and ICI (Metals) Ltd, formerly King’s Norton Metal Company (another half of the mintage)
1 santims 1937 - Valsts papīru spiestuve un naudas kaltuve (Riga, Latvia)
1 santims 1938 - Valsts papīru spiestuve un naudas kaltuve (Riga, Latvia)
1 santims 1939 - Valsts papīru spiestuve un naudas kaltuve (Riga, Latvia)
2 santimi 1922 - Huguenin Fréres & Co (Le Locle, Switzerland)
2 santimi 1926 - The Mint Birmingham Limited (Birmingham, UK)
2 santimi 1928 - The Mint Birmingham Limited (Birmingham, UK)
2 santimi 1932 - Royal Mint (London, UK)
2 santimi 1937 - Valsts papīru spiestuve un naudas kaltuve (Riga, Latvia)
2 santimi 1939 - Valsts papīru spiestuve un naudas kaltuve (Riga, Latvia)
5 santimi 1922 - Huguenin Fréres & Co (Le Locle, Switzerland)
10 santimu 1922 - Huguenin Fréres & Co (Le Locle, Switzerland)
20 santimu 1922 - Huguenin Fréres & Co (Le Locle, Switzerland)
50 santimu 1922 - Huguenin Fréres & Co (Le Locle, Switzerland)
1 lats 1924 - Royal Mint (London, UK)
2 lati 1925 - Royal Mint (London, UK)
2 lati 1926 - Royal Mint (London, UK)
5 lati 1929 - Royal Mint (London, UK)
5 lati 1931 - Royal Mint (London, UK)
5 lati 1932 - Royal Mint (London, UK)

If you don’t want to waste your time to find this information in official source, just compare the information in Krause catalogs fragments and this PCGS slab (This is a coin from my collection) and you will see catalog information – was minted in Switzerland, but PCGS slab said – Kings Norton, which located in UK.

Now we will return to the 1 santims 1928. We can see it was minted in UK (King’s Norton Metal Company). Now we can switch on our logic and think a little bit. World Coins Catalog from 35th edition till now tell to us - 1 santims 1928 variety mint name below ribbon. But how it's possible if only mark of Swiss mint exists on Latvian coins, but this coin was minted in Birmingham and UK mints never marked Latvian coins with their names? The answer is simple - it is impossible. But NGC, for example still somehow finds the Swiss mint name below ribbon on the coins minted in UK. Please take a look on another coin from my collection. The NGC slab, photos of obverse and reverse. Try to find mint name there.

You can say to me: OK, description of the 1 santims 1928 is wrong, but we still have 2 and 5 santimi 1922, these coins were minted in Switzerland and they have mint name below the ribbon.

To get the answer we need to go to the past. The Book of Aleksandrs Platbarzdis “Latvijas Nauda” (Latvian Money) 1971. Author was famous numismatist, he wrote numismatics books and articles also about history of Latvian coinage. Platbarzdis was born in 1899 and died in 1975.
In his book we can find the same coins, but if we will compare with World Coins catalog - description will be quite different. Please see some fragments from his book in Latvian language. So I will translate description.

  

2 santimi 1922 – Two variants: with designer’s name and without the designer’s name. About coin without designer’s name it is written next: “In the auction catalog "Abner Kreisberg" (USA) November 29, 1965, under the number 1652 was presented as "Very Rare" one copy without the name "R. ZARRIŅŠ". Since such variant didn’t discover by collectors till this time and, in addition, the presented specimen was "Extremely Fine", the suspicion arose that the coin was created for the purpose of making a profit.”

5 santimi 1922 - Two variants: with designer’s name and without the designer’s name. About coin without designer’s name it is written next: “Partially or completely without the signature "R. ZARRIŅŠ". Apparently struck with a stamp in which the engraved name was filled with metal dust.”

1 santims 1928 – Same like 5 santims with designer’s name and without the designer’s name.

Now we see that most likely in the catalogs these "varieties" appeared because of this book, and then for some unknown reason changed. I think that the authors of the catalogs simply confused the name of the mint and the name of the designer. We also see "Partially or completely" and "metal dust" in the description, and this already looks like not a variety, but a striking error (filled die).

But this is not the finish of this article yet! Let’s go deeper to the past. In the Latvian archives I found interesting documents about these inscriptions (mint name and designer's name). Again in Latvian language, so I will translate.

First document:
“At the direction of "HUGUENIN" we ask you to give a final decision that on the one side of the coins will be designer's name, and on the other side - mint name, executed in the same small and almost invisible letters, as on the Romania coins, patterns of which at your disposal. This small print can be used as an identification mark against possible forgeries, because such small letters can be produced only with special equipment.” I found few images of Romanian coins, please see below.

 

 

Second document:
“We would like to inform you that there are no objections to the Huguenin's request for the mint name. The name of the mint must be struck on the side of the coin where the coat of arms is. The mint name should be written in very small letters.”

As we can see, these small details were negotiated even before the minting of coins (the date is visible on the documents - October 1922, the contract with the Huguenin was concluded on October 5, 1922 after a competition for the minting of coins for Latvia).
The name of the designer was originally on the sketches of the coins, but Huguenin suggested adding the name of the mint, and after the consent of the customer, the company began production of stamps, and then coins. Therefore, all coins made in Switzerland have both inscriptions. There were no stamps without such inscriptions, and, accordingly, such coins’ varieties as "without an inscription" do not exist. There are only mint errors, we will talk about this below. In addition, all plaster model of Latvian coins which located in the Neuchâtel museum in Switzerland has both inscriptions.

So colleagues, the conclusions are as follows:
1) First and foremost. This is a mint error, but not the varieties!
2) It is necessary to stop publishing these "varieties" in catalogs and on the slabs of the grading companies. Because this is the same like: "two varieties: without a die crack and with die crack" or "two varieties: without edge strike and with edge strike", etc. As you can see this is ridiculous. So this must be stopped!
3) To recognize mint error need to use coins only in good condition. Because coins of 1922 has not very high relief (that's why patterns dated 1923 exists, because Latvia wanted to order new coins with higher relief) and while in circulation these inscriptions may disappear. Even on the coins with higher relief dated after 1922 very hard to see this inscription (check photo of 1 santims 1928 - it is MS65, but anyway designer's name looks not very clear.

And finally a few word about statistics. For years me and my colleagues try to find these errors. We found only 5 santims error, my colleague has this coin without designer’s name in MS63RB (please see photos). I also have, but condition is worse than my colleague’s coin. Neither I nor my colleagues have ever found or seen such errors on 1 santims 1928 or 2 santimi 1922. Also, we do not know anyone who has ever seen such mint errors.

 

Thank you for your attention!

[RWB]

Very informative! Most USA collectors rarely get past the beautiful 5 Lati pieces.

(PS: The image links don't seem to be working.)

Edited April 11, 2021 by RWB

[medved]

59 minutes ago, RWB said:

Very informative! Most USA collectors rarely get past the beautiful 5 Lati pieces.

(PS: The image links don't seem to be working.)

Thank you!
You cannot see the pictures at all?

[Just Bob]

I can't see any pictures.

[medved]

3 minutes ago, Just Bob said:

I can't see any pictures.

No good, try to see it here, another forum, same topic: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1054648/latvia-km-1-3-about-the-mistake-that-catalogs-and-grading-companies-make-every-year#latest

[RWB]

Medved - Thank for the link to the other message board. I read and enjoyed your article much more with the photos and various pointers to details. I hope you book project is successful!

[Fenntucky Mike]

Excellent piece! Well done.

Krause is a guide and there are errors in it, honestly, I'm always impressed with just how much is correct in it. That being said it's not the be all and end all of information, mainly just a starting point for most individuals. Since Krause was sold I'm not sure if you can still contact them but if you presented this to them I'm sure they'd take another look. As far as NGC and PCGS they do tend to follow Krause a little to blindly for my taste sometimes, as a submitter you have to help out with these less common, low priced world coins. The 1928 Santims coin in the NGC holder is a mechanical error, I don't think anything was implied by it. Getting a new variety recognized or old one changed can be difficult. I'm slowly chipping away at errors and unrecognized varieties with Ukrainian coins and notes. Luckily for me there are many great references out there.

The transference from the 1971 reference to Krause makes sense as well as the evolution of the "variety" in Krause and you nailed the filled die information debunking the varieties in the 71 reference. Great job.

One question, on the 1935 Santims, is there a difference between the Birmingham Limited and Kings Norton coins?

[Fenntucky Mike]

I can view the pictures if I'm using a desktop/laptop they are not viewable on my phone though. 

[medved]

19 minutes ago, Fenntucky Mike said:

Krause is a guide and there are errors in it, honestly, I'm always impressed with just how much is correct in it. That being said it's not the be all and end all of information, mainly just a starting point for most individuals. Since Krause was sold I'm not sure if you can still contact them but if you presented this to them I'm sure they'd take another look. As far as NGC and PCGS they do tend to follow Krause a little to blindly for my taste sometimes, as a submitter you have to help out with these less common, low priced world coins. The 1928 Santims coin in the NGC holder is a mechanical error, I don't think anything was implied by it. Getting a new variety recognized or old one changed can be difficult. I'm slowly chipping away at errors and unrecognized varieties with Ukrainian coins and notes. Luckily for me there are many great references out there.

The transference from the 1971 reference to Krause makes sense as well as the evolution of the "variety" in Krause and you nailed the filled die information debunking the varieties in the 71 reference. Great job.

One question, on the 1935 Santims, is there a difference between the Birmingham Limited and Kings Norton coins?

I tried to write to Krause about 5 years ago, twice, once they didn’t answer me, the second time, they wrote that they had handed my letter to someone, and that was the end of it.
You are wrong, in santims 1928, there is no mechanical damage. The name of the designer is clearly visible on it and there cannot be any name of the mint. I explained this in the article.
For Ukrainian coins I can give you a link to catalogs, I have several, maybe they will be useful to you, the varieties are described there. You can see it here:

https://world-coins.weebly.com/krause-catalogs--other-books.html

There is no difference in the coins of 1935, I have not yet fully studied the issue, but as far as I understand, all orders went through the Royal Mint, which was already deciding matters with Birmingham. Also, in the rules on the minting of Latvian coins, where the appearance of coins is described, there is always the same description.

[Fenntucky Mike]

9 minutes ago, medved said:

I tried to write to Krause about 5 years ago, twice, once they didn’t answer me, the second time, they wrote that they had handed my letter to someone, and that was the end of it.
You are wrong, in santims 1928, there is no mechanical damage. The name of the designer is clearly visible on it and there cannot be any name of the mint. I explained this in the article.
For Ukrainian coins I can give you a link to catalogs, I have several, maybe they will be useful to you, the varieties are described there. You can see it here:

https://world-coins.weebly.com/krause-catalogs--other-books.html

There is no difference in the coins of 1935, I have not yet fully studied the issue, but as far as I understand, all orders went through the Royal Mint, which was already deciding matters with Birmingham. Also, in the rules on the minting of Latvian coins, where the appearance of coins is described, there is always the same description.

Thanks for the link, I have all those references. I would be really interested in a reference, articles or pretty much anything in regards to the bofons issued by the UPA during and after WWII. If you have any connections at the NBU BPMW let me know I'd love to see some of there internal documents from the early 90's. Would love to read about their partnership/dealings with CBNC at the time.

One of the discrepancies in Krause that causes confusion is Ukraine KM# 10.1 and 10.2, there is an image of 10.2 above the 10.1 description and it gets people mixed up. Aargh. Sorry, enough of my nonsense. 

[JKK]

Considering that Krause's parent filed for bankruptcy in the last few years, I'm not sure how soon they'll be correcting their errors and omissions concerning Latvian coinage.

[medved]

1 hour ago, Fenntucky Mike said:

If you have any connections at the NBU BPMW let me know I'd love to see some of there internal documents from the early 90's. Would love to read about their partnership/dealings with CBNC at the time.

Unfortunately, I cannot help you. I don't have connections there

[medved]

49 minutes ago, JKK said:

Considering that Krause's parent filed for bankruptcy in the last few years, I'm not sure how soon they'll be correcting their errors and omissions concerning Latvian coinage.

Yes, I'm afraid you're right. But we already made a small step after these years. Thanks to my colleague Arno from the Netherlands, Numista decide to remove these "varieties" from their web site.
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces2397.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces4919.html

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces4481.html