same reverse image on canadian 5 cent coins

Good day! I believe that the reverse image is the same on these 3 coin pages, all of which are 4th portrait Canadian 5 cents. I recommend changing the images of N#3587 and N#395 or ask who took the picture of the obverse to take an image of the reverse of their coin.

N#3587

N#377393

N#395

That happens a lot. I've commented on it multiple times.

Here's one but not the only: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic146021.html

For somebody interested in variants, to reuse the same image for several coins is definitely not a wonderful situation. I can see it was so much easier in the days, where so many euro coins were entered in numista, to reuse the same image again and again, but I agree with @rsirian1 , that it should be VERBOTEN (forbidden).

N#3587 and N#395 were at the same coin page once. The only difference is the mint mark. I don't know if it's necessary to split coin pages because of the mint mark (this certainly isn't consistent throughout our catalog). But anyway, at a certain moment the coin page is split and the reverse picture is reused. There is nothing wrong with it per se since they are identical, but aesthetically it does not look very nice if it is obvious obverse and reverse pictures are not from the same coin, and in this case obverse and reverse pictures don't even have the same size.

P is not a mint mark. P indicates the coin is plated.  SCWC doesn't split them but Schön does.

So the only difference is a mark. The coins with the maple leaf in stead of the P are also plated.

Essor Prof

So the only difference is a mark. The coins with the maple leaf in stead of the P are also plated.

That is correct. Does Schön explain why they created a new reference code?  

Here's a couple posts on the subject.

https://en.numista.com/forum/topic133870.html

https://en.numista.com/forum/topic60517.html

rsirian1

 

SCWC doesn't split them but Schön does.

rsirian1

 

Does Schön explain why they created a new reference code?  

Well, that's the problem. Schön doesn't split them, at least not fundamentally.

The Schön reference numbers in our catalog are not correct (at least not in the 2016 edition I have). The both types KM# 491 are also both Schön# 519a (and not Schön# 519 and Schön# 519a as stated in our catalog). Hence the question, why are these two types split?

What Schön does, is making a further distinction within 519a between the dates with material specification P (Schön# 519a.1, with material specification P and mint mark W (Schön# 519a.2) and with mint mark maple leaf (Schön# 519a.3). So if we split P and maple leaf because Schön does, we should also split W to be consistent. Or don't split P, W and meaple leaf at all!

Schön reference numbers versus KM reference numbers:

5 cents copper-nickel: Schön# 519 - KM# 491b

5 cents nickel plated steel with P: Schön# 519a.1 - KM# 491

5 cents nickel plated steel with P and W: Schön# 519a.2 - KM# ?

5 cents nickel plated steel with maple leaf: Schön# 519a.3 - KM# 491

5 cents .925 silver no mint mark: Schön# 519b.1 - KM# 491a (only 2004 is in Krause)

5 cents .925 silver with maple leaf: Schön# 519b.2 - KM# ?

5 cents .999 silver: Schön# 519c - KM# ?

If we split 5 cents nickel plated steel with P and 5 cents nickel plated steel with maple leaf because Schön does, why don't we split 5 cents

.925 silver no mint mark and 5 cents .925 silver with maple leaf? Schön split these exactly the way they split the 5 cents nickel plated steel. The most important characteristics for a catalog are accuracy and consistency. Unfortunately, that's not the case here.

If you look at the history of these two pages you find they were at one time not split. It seemed odd to me that the 2006-2022 has a lower N# than the 2003-2006.  Here's some history

N#395  in Aug. 2022 included all from2003-2022.

and N#3587 was only for a 2006 Cu-Ni coin:

By Nov. 2023 N#395 became the 2006-2022 RCM logo coin

and N#3587 became the 2003-2006 P coin

I inquired about doing this with a Piedfort coin a few weeks ago and don't really understand what the problem people have with reusing an image for something that is 100% identical.  The purpose of adding a coin to the catalog is to show the design of the coin, not MY specific coin.  We use plenty of images other than a photo taken by the page creator, so that's not the problem.  If there is literally no difference, why does the picture need to be different?  I'm very supportive if an excellent image exists to use it wherever else it is appropriate.

Tovarich

If there is literally no difference, why does the picture need to be different? 

 Agreed. Any picture or drawing is always better than nothing - surely? 

ZacUK

Tovarich

If there is literally no difference, why does the picture need to be different? 

 Agreed. Any picture or drawing is always better than nothing - surely? 

What about using the same picture on two different denomination coins?

In numista you show an image of the obverse and reverse of coin from a defined period. As such the year just had to be inside the period. The side with no year can be from any other coin inside the period. That's how I have just understood the on-going discussion. 

Personally I prefer the obverse and reverse to be from the same coin!!!

Different periods?

N#73

N#56030

Different countries/mints?

N#67625

N#89

N#145

Different denominations?

N#78

N#74

N#6298

N#6300

N#97

N#98

That is a kind of forgery…

  I do not see why not  - again anything is better than nothing. 

Such as the UK 1 Pence and 2 Pence coins - if there were just a 

picture of the obverse, how could it be distinguished which coin it was - 

and for me what on earth does it matter anyway? 

 No idea what the official rule is - or where to find it - and if it 

disagrees with the above then I disagree with that rule. 😩 

That is a kind of forgery…

There are two kinds of 1 2 and 5 Cent coins. 2016 to 2018 I think. I can't check since covid has sent me to the hospital.  Look at the german coins to check. I think I put some documentation there. 

ZacUK

  I do not see why not  - again anything is better than nothing. 

Such as the UK 1 Pence and 2 Pence coins - if there were just a 

picture of the obverse, how could it be distinguished which coin it was - 

and for me what on earth does it matter anyway? 

 No idea what the official rule is - or where to find it - and if it 

disagrees with the above then I disagree with that rule. 😩 

That's been the argument all along. I don't think any of these examples would go pictureless.  If it's allowed then change the rule in the guidelines that states it's not allowed. At the very lease a disclaimer should be added when one of the pictures is not of the coin type.

https://en.numista.com/help/picture-obverse-reverse-and-edge-129.html

The European parliament changed the rules for the 1 2 and 5 cents to make them cheaper and easier to mint.  So you have rounded  and pointed denominations on some reverses for some years. 2017 to 2019 I think. So for that kind of coins all of the same type we have to be careful to have obverse and reverse of the same coin!

Why not make it a rule?

Sjoelund

 

Why not make it a rule?

Such as, If several coins share an identical face, do not reuse the same image for multiple coins. Photos should belong to that specific type. ?

It should state

Always use the obverse and reverse of the same coin.

Sjoelund

It should state

Always use the obverse and reverse of the same coin.

I agree.