Turkey km#1027.1

N#1326

My findings for this type 

monete3

My findings for this type 

and your conclusions, please?

I'm only  trying to share my findings…maybe they could be interesting for other collectors.

Krause and Numista don't report them yet.

My conclusions are that this coin needs some subtypes (of course 2…maybe 3) but this is not the right place…

It could be the right place to find confirmations for my findings and then report them in the coin page. 

If it had been my coins and images and measure results, I would have come to the conclusion, that in the year 1996, you have two different sizes of the 1? If this is confirmed by other collectors you have an argument for an "eventual" extra year line for 1996. Maybe you could also argue for a new sub-type by saying up to and included 1996 the height of the 1 is so much and from and included 1996 and up to the end date of the type the height of the 1 is so much?

If my findings can be confirmed by other collectors, we could have :

1995 large size value (adding this comment to the existing year line)

1996 medium size value (adding this comment to the existing year line)

1996 small size value (new extra year line)

1997 small size value (adding this comment to the existing year line)

Obviously it's partially completed because I don't have all the years…I miss 1994 one.

1994 23.57mm 1=9.44mm and here an image, so you can do your measuring knowing the coin's diameter.

Btw, on the 1996 there are different text placements on the edge (not A or B) but high, medium and low?

Have fun

Ole

Are your measurements made by caliper? 

Hello, I was able to conform your findings monete3. But when I use my calipers, I get 9,44mm for a large 1 and 8,24mm for a small 1 with a coin diameter of 23,30mm. So are your calipers correct, or mine, or sjoelunds? That's why I like my variants to be instantly identifiable by sight.

Rather than the nummer 10, I would use the crescent and star to distinguish between the variants. As you can plainly see, the crescent and star are placed lower and are smaller for 1996 and 1997. Also the date is placed higher for those years.

I have 1996 two times in this line-up, the left one is the smaller crescent and star, the right one is larger. You are also correct that the number 1 on the right one is not as big as in 1994 and 1995, but also not as small as in 1997. But the difference is not significant enough (in my opinion).

So now my findings: 1994, 1995-Larger number 10 and crescent and star placed higher (easy to see as there is less room between the edge and the 1 and the crescent).

1997, and possibly later years-Smaller number 10 and crescent and star placed lower (again easy to see).

1996-Both versions of above variants…

The picture below is the original one and can be used by someone with more knowledge about how to add those nice little red lines 😄

Hi…my caliper is 0.02mm precision.

I've spent 2 hours to measure them…repeating a lot of time and this are my results:

1995 diameter 23.5 mm, "10" 9.68 mm, flower 9.28 mm wide

1996 diameter 23.5 mm, "10" 9.28 mm, flower 9.16 mm wide

1996 diameter 23.5 mm, “10” 8.8 mm, flower 8.48 mm wide

1997 diameter 23.5 mm, “10” 8.8 mm, flower 8.48 mm wide.

Apart of all these measurements which can also differ because they are made by different “hands”, in my opinion they lead to this conclusions:

1995 reverse with large details (should be  km#1027.1.1);

1996 reverse with medium details (should be  km#1027.1.2)(the difference is significant according to me because we can see it even by sight thanks to Newtony photos);

1996-1997 reverse with small details (should be km#1027.1.3).

I don't have 1994 one but I think I can say it's like 1995 one (thanks to Newtony and Sjoelund photos).

Andrea