Duplicate [opgelost]

Keep N#34841

Delete https://en.numista.com/393228

One say CuNi the other Brass in the title.

I couldn't find any evidence of a brass one. SCWC has the Cu-Ni and silver and gold of higher denominations.  São Tomé and Príncipe made 15 non-precious metal coins in 1993.  All were Cu-NI except this one.  From 1980 to 2025 it made 90 different type coins. None were brass except this one.  Only one member has the “brass” one. 31 members have the Cu-Ni one.  I don't have Schön but I'm guessing it doesn't show a brass one either.  I believe the brass in the title is incorrect.

What about all of the brass-colured ones shown in the past sales of the cu-ni page?

There's only two and they're both listed as Copper-Nickel., Gold plated.

in the history of this listing, the creator said they were not sure of the composition but that it appeared to be brass plated.

Katz says gold-plated in their auctions, as pointed out by Rsirian1.

If KM only has it as CuNi, then presumably the plating is after-market?

@monge  do you agree we should remove this listing if there is no evidence it was struck with a different composition?  

rsirian1

 I don't have Schön but I'm guessing it doesn't show a brass one either.  I believe the brass in the title is incorrect.

Schon shows like below (in German):

MMowiec

rsirian1

 I don't have Schön but I'm guessing it doesn't show a brass one either.  I believe the brass in the title is incorrect.

Schon shows like below (in German):

Nickel brass?  Still only one composition.

Yes, according to Schon only one version exist: Nickel-brass. 

It seems like any of two versions listed on Numista (Cu-Ni, Brass) doesn't exist but it exists something between: Nickel-brass (by marketing guys called also Alpaca or "New silver"/Neusilber). 

Or maybe Schon is wrong and SCWC is correct?  Regardless the duplicate one should be deleted and maybe a comment about the two catalogs disagreeing should be added.

rsirian1

Or maybe Schon is wrong and SCWC is correct?  Regardless the duplicate one should be deleted and maybe a comment about the two catalogs disagreeing should be added.

Done as suggested.