Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Stork, post: 2730536, member: 71642&quot;]And, this is why coin collecting is so much fun <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie8" alt=":D" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>In general, I follow Krause, but don&#039;t hesitate at all to deviate when appropriate.&nbsp; First of all Krause makes mistakes.&nbsp; Second, it doesn&#039;t always make sense.&nbsp; The registry sets at NGC follow Krause and I find myself rolling my eyes at times.&nbsp; If the country has it&#039;s own specific guide then I tend to follow that more...or pick my own rationale.</p><p><br /></p><p>For example, when doing my modern (1870-present) Japan type set Krause has breaks due to century, and so do the registry sets.&nbsp; Looking in the JNDA (Japan catalog) there is no distinction.&nbsp; The Japanese book also does not &#039;change type&#039; due to a change in Emperor/Era.&nbsp; When doing my type set I did want to include the regnal era changes as &#039;type&#039; as it was a major shift.&nbsp; The Japanese catalog is also a little inconsistent when placing transitional coins (between the Empire/post war-pre constitution/current constitution).</p><p><br /></p><p>As a collector you can take the historical aspects and include that in your collection as you deem fit.&nbsp; The Hungarian history is very interesting (and new to me) and with what you describe I would call it a type for each government.&nbsp; The fact they look the same is a mere quirk of production planning.&nbsp; That said, each collector can define it how they want.</p><p><br /></p><p>Cool discussion![/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in