Request to add line Finland 20 marks 1952-1962 [решено]

There is an inconsistency in the catalog.

The article 10 marks 1952-1962 https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces7829.html
present all three different designs of Reverse in description. The changes of them are known in 1958 and 1961. The mintage section reflects these changes by two lines for each year with corresponding comment.

But, at the same time 20 marks 1952-1962
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1062.html

had similar change of Reverse design, pointed out by Finnish Numismatic Society (standard reference 626.1 and 626.2). It is lovely presented with just a small inaccuracy by an image of Ole depicting an uncommon variety of 1954 .

Does it worth for catalog consistency in the mintage section instead of

1954 H 17,034,000

add one more line

1954 H 17,034,000 comment: MARKKAA close to rim

1954 H comment: MARKKAA far from rim, mintage incl.

?

Hi,

do you have pictures for see diferences ?

regards
florino28

I do not understand the question.

Indeed the Finnish Numismatic Society already published the varieties. They exist and they do not need my images. More over standard reference SNY 626.1 is clearly visible on the images in the article as it is already mentioned in the first post.
Another standard reference SNY 626.2 is presented by Ole in the same documentation. Now I just re-write the first post. Is it that what you wish?
Or you do not wish to accept Ole documentation as proper one for it is confusing?

And again, I just re-write the first post. In this case yes, you are completely right, Ole confused them, the SNY 626.1 is on the right and SNY 626.2 on the left. It is most probably happened, for he prepared the documentation for right-to-left readers, or just did not make a standard comparison of them with other years, in order to put them correctly. But this work was done by specialists in Finnish Numismatic Society many years ago.

Despite of this, do you consider this documentation fatally inappropriate to solve the request? If so, let us ask Ole to correct his documentation and apply it again. I believe that he made the main part of the work for the article in this case. And with or without this mistake the varieties exist.

I think my documentation shows, what needs to to be shown?

On the other hand "MARKAA" near or far from the rim is not an objective criterium, the branches though are easy to distinguish!

Ole

Actually in the first post it was already mentioned a small inaccuracy in the documentation.
The third post gives the idea what to change.

Just switch the position of left and right variety and (optional) add a standard numbering SNY (Finnish Numismatic Society)

And my congratulations with presenting image of uncommon variety! It is worth to share it.

The purpose of this post is to add extra line to describe fully these recognized interesting varieties.

Of course for the dies are completely different, there are many features which indicate how to distinguish the varieties. The recommended comment for 2 lines in year distribution is based on
1) my experience: just looking at position of lettering I separate many coins quickly without any mistake.
2) laconic style: the feature 'far/close to rim' is among proposed by publications based on SNY, it is short and those, who need more details get them from the documentation together with other obvious features: branches, their orientations, shapes, thicknesses, mutual positions etc.

What makes honor to the documentation in question is that it presents both sides of coins of each variety. It is modern style in science.

I don't know, if I have to say thank you or not

As such I don't care if it's two lines or not in numista. In my collection I have two lines (one for each of these variants), but then again I'm a variant guy, as you might have noticed, hence my documentations..... I don't really want to impose other collectors to be as "precise", specially if they only collect one coin per type they might not care at all.

For a normal collector it's not always easy to determine, which line to add his coin to. It happens all the time in my swaps, that an offered coin has been put into the wrong line!!!! It just shows, that we all are different!

I DO think though, that it's very important to document varieties AND enrich the comments in numista with the found facts. Afterwards it's up to the referees to decide how many lines they think should be devoted to variants for that year.

In my swaps I think I prefer as few year lines as possible, if I'm not sure of the expertise of my swap partner, I don't really don't way to tell somebody, that he (she) doesn't know how to classify his coins. It's a way to get more doubles into my doubles list, AND no hefty discussions with my partners Let the peace prevail

Ole

Actually the very first post answered this last comment completely.

Let me re-copy-and-paste-it for it seems that it escaped the attention.


---
There is an inconsistency in the catalog.

The article 10 marks 1952-1962 <...>
present all three different designs of Reverse in description. <...>
But, at the same time 20 marks 1952-1962

had similar change of Reverse design <...>

Does it worth for catalog consistency in the mintage section <...>
--
and so on.
So we have 2 lines for every variety in 10 marks and we do have exactly the same for 20 marks. It is not consistent. That is all.

ok thanks it's done

Цитата: "Sjoelund"​I don't know, if I have to say thank you or not
​
​As such I don't care if it's two lines or not in numista. In my collection I have two lines (one for each of these variants), but then again I'm a variant guy, as you might have noticed, hence my documentations..... I don't really want to impose other collectors to be as "precise", specially if they only collect one coin per type they might not care at all.
​
​For a normal collector it's not always easy to determine, which line to add his coin to. It happens all the time in my swaps, that an offered coin has been put into the wrong line!!!! It just shows, that we all are different!
​
​I DO think though, that it's very important to document varieties AND enrich the comments in numista with the found facts. Afterwards it's up to the referees to decide how many lines they think should be devoted to variants for that year.
​
​In my swaps I think I prefer as few year lines as possible, if I'm not sure of the expertise of my swap partner, I don't really don't way to tell somebody, that he (she) doesn't know how to classify his coins. It's a way to get more doubles into my doubles list, AND no hefty discussions with my partners Let the peace prevail
​
​Ole

​As you might guess, I'm NOT too happy about the split in the two year lines! See above.
If you sit with only one coin in front of you, you're lost..... it's not possible to distinguish between them without a coin to compare it against!
Now we'll get members just putting their coins in ANY of the two lines. If that was the purpose, you've succeeded beautifully
Ole