The only difference between two types is edge, which Numista does not generally consider as a big enough difference. (at least I did not find other differences)
I see dots on either side of the dates in 1988 but not in 2011.
And looking at the leaves I see lots of small differences. But I have no idea if the leaf design varies by year or was the same from 1977 to 2000 and changed in 2011.
I see dots on either side of the dates in 1988 but not in 2011.
And looking at the leaves I see lots of small differences. But I have no idea if the leaf design varies by year or was the same from 1977 to 2000 and changed in 2011.
1996-1998 coins don't have those dots either, yet are still classified as the same type as this one: N#2437. If anything, 1981 should be separated into a different type, because it has an outlined coat of arms, which gives a significantly different look to the coin.
Leaf and bird design varies by year significantly, you can see a gradual transition if you look at multiple dates.
The only difference between two types is edge, which Numista does not generally consider as a big enough difference. (at least I did not find other differences)
Hi, from Numista Guideliness:
"Coin types are split on independent pages when they feature:
Despite this, it is true that in Numista many coins with different edges share the same page... but according to Numista guideliness, if the edge change is deliberate and not random or by mistake, the pages should be splited, so in my opinion, these two pages should not be merged.
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
Yes, I have already told you that there are quite a few like this, I have only tried to clarify that according to the Numist Guide, that is one of the reasons to split a coin into two types, that is what I think that these two pages should not be merged. As you say, maybe many coins should be splited. Lets see what the admins think about it.
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
If you ask me an edge variant is no ground for a split because you don't see it in the catalog leading to two or worse more pages with identical obverse and reverse pictures that you now have to look through to find the right place for your coin (if you are lucky the difference is describe in the title). There is also no search parameter for edges making it even less relevant to have separate pages.
If you ask me an edge variant is no ground for a split because you don't see it in the catalog leading to two or worse more pages with identical obverse and reverse pictures that you now have to look through to find the right place for your coin (if you are lucky the difference is describe in the title). There is also no search parameter for edges making it even less relevant to have separate pages.
I completely agree with you both, but then the Numista Guidelines should be modified... after all, it's the tool we all have to build a catalogue with a certain coherence.
In fact, orientation (coin vs. medal alignment) is also mentioned as a reason for spliting types, and, as with the edge, I don't think that should be considered a reason for separating two types, for the same reasons you gave for the edge.
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
If you ask me an edge variant is no ground for a split because you don't see it in the catalog leading to two or worse more pages with identical obverse and reverse pictures that you now have to look through to find the right place for your coin (if you are lucky the difference is describe in the title). There is also no search parameter for edges making it even less relevant to have separate pages.
I completely agree with you both, but then the Numista Guidelines should be modified... after all, it's the tool we all have to build a catalogue with a certain coherence.
In fact, orientation (coin vs. medal alignment) is also mentioned as a reason for spliting types, and, as with the edge, I don't think that should be considered a reason for separating two types, for the same reasons you gave for the edge.
Yes, that was my whole point. I think the catalog should be more standardized. We have separation by edge or orientation in some cases, but not in other. I think we really should look into this problem.
I, personally, don't think edge is a significant enough difference to command a type separation.
