[Legolas]

I agree that there is no contradiction. I differ about how T.A. 3021/F.A. 1 coincide. The change to a March 25 new year (start of 3019) and the change to Fourth Age (late 3021) were established over two years apart. Years had already been starting on March 25 as of T.A. 3019, so T.A. 3021 and F.A. 1 would be exactly the same year from beginning to end.

My understanding, based on Appendix D, has long been as follows. Have I missed something? Forgive redundancies as I am somewhat reworking this out to myself in light of reading others' interpretation.

According to Appendix D in the New Reckoning, March 25 would begin the new year as of T.A. 3019. By the time T.A. 3021/F.A. 1 came, March 25 had already marked the new year for two years:

The New Reckoning was begun in the restored Kingdom in T.A. 3019. It represented a return to Kings' Reckoning adapted to fit a spring-beginning as in the Eldarin loa.
In the New Reckoning the year began on March 25 old style, in commemoration of the fall of Sauron and the deeds of the Ring-bearers. The months retained their names, beginning now with Viressë (April), but referred to periods beginning generally five days earlier than previously.

[Also note that the year actually starts with Viressë (April) now, so Viressë/April 1 has been backed up to the old March 25 (thus the comment about 'five days earlier than previously') to allow the year to start on the first day of a month, I presume. I will continue to refer to it as March 25, for simplicity.]

The question I have instead: when did the year numeral actually change to/from '3019'? Was '3018' retroactively used for an extra three months to allow 3019 to first turnover on March 25? Or was '3019' held over three months to allow 3020 to start with March 25? In either scenario, it would at least not matter to the F.A. conversion as long as the change to the new year started prior to 3021.

Or are you thinking that the numeral would have continued to change on their midwinter according to the Stewards' Reckoning (Yestarë between Rinagarië and Narvinyë, December 22 on our calendar, January 1 in our function)?

When the New Reckoning was taken up in T.A. 3019, it's not as if it was already determined as well that F.A. would take place of T.A. 3021. This was actually done in retrospect, with Elrond leaving in September of that year.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

In view of this, surely it is clear that F.A. 1 corresponds neither to T.A. 3021 nor to T.A. 3022, but rather to the period that in the T.A. reckoning would be March 25, 3021 to March 24, 3022.

Given the T.A. 3019 change to a 'March 25 new year' already happened, F.A. 1 would have to correspond directly to T.A. 3021. Since March 25 is the first day of the year, years would've run:

Midwinter - Midwinter - March 24 T.A. 3018 (or maybe this in 3019 instead)
March 25 - March 24 T.A. 3019
March 25 - March 24 T.A. 3020
March 25 - March 24 T.A. 3021 (= March 25 - March 24 F.A. 1)
March 25 - March 24 T.A. 3022 (= March 25 - March 24 F.A. 2)

Elrond left in September T.A. 3021, and it was decided retroactively that the previous Viressë 1 (old March 25) T.A. 3021 would now be observed as the start of F.A. 1 - but it would have already been the first day of 3021, so only the year's name has been changed. Not its starting day. The years have to be the same, 3021 and 1:

The Fourth Age was held to have begun with the departure of Master Elrond, which took place in September 3021; but for purposes of record in the Kingdom Fourth Age 1 was the year that began according to the New Reckoning in March 25, 3021, old style.

In New Reckoning, Viressë 1 (F.A. 1/T.A. 3021). In 'old style' Stewards' Reckoning, March 25 T.A. 3021 (but still would've been observed as the first day of the year when it happened because of the change of 3019).
_______________

While the New Reckoning begins years on our March 25 from T.A. 3019 onwards, Shire Reckoning continued to start new years midwinter on Yule 2.

If Yule 2 is adjusted/converted to December 22 and I count correctly, then there would be a 96 day gap between the hobbit new year and the Gondorian new year (or 269 in the opposite direction), and thus the nominal year for each would coincide only for a period of each cycle (just like two people with birthdays in different months).

Here's my understanding of how it would've happened. Days again given in our modern calendar, for simplicity:


___________

A different sort of contradiction could exist, however, though I suspect this would've been corrected by historians (Findegil?) or altogether not an issue as hobbits wouldn't have actually recorded things in their own 'F.A.' terms, continuing to favor S.R. and leaving the conversion to - you guessed it - us.

According to the end of Appendix D, the hobbits decided that the Fourth Age began Yule 2 1422 (Dec. 22 T.A. 3021), and chose not to observe the Age shift nine months earlier on March 25 T.A. 3021 as humans had:

Fourth Age 1 was thus called 1422; and in so far as the Hobbits took any account of the change of Age, they maintained it began with Yule 2 1422, and not in the previous March.

So given that, wouldn't the F.A. conversion differ by a year if you were hearing it from a hobbit (-1 in F.A.) instead of a Gondorian from April through December of each year? As I said though, I believe any such differences would've been eradicated from any of the written works we're 'presented' with, bringing all in line with the Gondorian calendar's F.A.