that variant is NOT in the SCWC, so somebody from this community must have reported it? Where is the documentation? I'm sitting around with some doubles of this type and would like to know what "smaller" beads could be? https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces882.html
I do NOT think numista should accept additions, changes or whatever without a proof, which then should be put into the comments field....
I can't see on the Modification History where the "smaller beads" variety was added but apparently there are 60 members who have this type in their collection!
Just because you can't see it ... doesn't mean it isn't there - Anon.
it would be nice if JUST ONE of those members would post an image of his coin with the BIGGER 101 beads and of course the most important image, namely the coin with the SMALLER 101 beads? Or maybe it would be too much top ask for?
This just shows, that moderators MUST NOT accept any modifications without a solid proof in the form of a comparing image for all those "smaller", "bigger", "higher", "lower", "wider", "narrower" etc subjective descriptions!
Just to add a new year or mint mark, one image is enough!
Thanks, essor, I didn't know Spink's catalog, so mercy for the reference.
