Papal States 1760 Doppio Giulio / two different KM#998 [resuelto]

Hello. I just bought a 1760 Doppio Giulio, but I've notice something odd. The paper Krause catalog has my coin as KM#998 (ngc link):

https://www.ngccoin.com/price-guide/world/italian-states-papal-states-doppio-2-giulio-km-998-1760-ii-1766-viii-cuid-1153556-duid-1595251

But Numista has a different coin as KM#998 (ngc & numista links):

https://www.ngccoin.com/price-guide/world/italian-states-papal-states-doppio-2-giulio-km-998-1760-ii-1766-viii-cuid-1153556-duid-1491360
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces119467.html

NGC online calls both of them #998. I've never come across this situation where two distinct coins are listed under the same KM#.

Any thoughts as to why this is the case?

Chris

At first glance, it looks as though Krause has accepted some reverse differences for different dates under the same KM number (you have shown differences between the 1760 and the 1766). The description of the devices (Radiant figure ...) and legends still fits, but the legend begins in a different place, likewise the date.

They are not consistent is such things; we discussed a gold coin on this thread with even smaller changes, which got different KM numbers. https://en.numista.com/forum/topic116554.html

The Numista listing seems to be a clear error. It would be useful to find the SCWC KM# 998 in the other references listed in https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces119467.html (Munt and CNI XVII).

As for multiple coins given a KM number, there is obviously the case of renumbering countries. (Austria, Argentina, and many others.) There is also Prussia KM# 291. In an old SCWC it was the coin that is now East Freisland # A231 but # 291 was reused.

And there are many cases where one KM number represents many types and should be split. One example is Brandenburg-Bayreuth KM# 247. This type is four different types in Schön DM that look quite different. We've managed to get images of all four into Numista.
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces287015.html (and click the See also links to see the other three)

I think we were writing at the same time ...

Certainly I know of other examples where Krause has the wrong photo for a coin. Not sure this is the case here.

I've been revising some other Papal States coins, and will do some research. If indeed this KM type covers such large variations, I'll see if other photos can be added to the Numista listing to explain it.

Edit: 1760 and 1761 have the figure turned right and the date at 6:00
1762-1766 have the figure facing forward and the date at 4:00
I agree with @bjherbison these difference are probably large enough to have split the types in KM.
I'll submit a modification to our listing with photos and a comment on the date lines to help alleviate the confusion.

Edit: Last comment. KM and Berman assign a single type to 1760-1766. Muntoni splits them.

Thanks to the OP for bringing this up so that we can improve the catalog!

This entry is now updated to reflect the variation raised by the OP (comments section and date table).
h https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces119467.html

What is OP?

Cita: "Sjoelund"​What is OP?

​Original Poster

POC, that answer

Cita: "tdziemia"​This entry is now updated to reflect the variation raised by the OP (comments section and date table).
​h https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces119467.html

​Thanks much for the correction!