Quote: "oynbcn"https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces6358.html
I think we must separate this coin into 2 different types, because size is not the same for the 2 types (KM#27.1 and KM#27.2)
The different size is only 1 mm, but is different size.
Maybe a sub number would do it, not a full type (SCWC way of speaking).
Quote: "oynbcn"The weight of the coins in my collection is:
1990 & 1991 (Around 13.08-13.10 gr)
1992 (12.97 gr)
Is 1 mm & 0.10 gr enough to separate the 2 types? If not, where is the limit from which 2 different types would be considered?
Try to look at Italy, when they made the small 50 lire coins replace the big ones, I seem to remember they kept the same main type? Even with a weightloss of around 3 full grams, it must have been around 1990?
A not disimilar case came up recently from Costa Rica. There it was determined that the change was intentional and we were able to find some documentation detailing what happened. Is there anything like that to be found for these coins? A quick Google search didn't turn up anything but perhaps someone has the right link?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
I put my 1990 and my 1992 next to each other, and I have to believe this is intentional and announced. The difference is noticeable -- if they hadn't educated the public on the change there would have been people rejecting the new coins as fake.
But there are other cases where different sizes don't cause a different type. One example: Chile KM# 161. KM# 161.1 is 3.5g, 20mm. KM# 161.2 is 2.5g 18mm (almost 30% lighter). The Numista page doesn't list the difference. (I just put in a change request to document the difference.) https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces22018.html
Hello colleagues, as you can understand, I do not care much if these two types separate or not. I'm just trying to give consistency and uniformity to our Numista catalog, create a single criterion that works for all cases. This is not an antique or hammered coinage coin whose diameter and weight may vary. It is a modern currency and in all cases the 1990 and 1991 coins are larger and heavier than those of 1992. If we only separate those types for which we have been able to find information, a difference in criteria will be created that does not I think it is beneficial to have a coherent catalog, so I still believe that they should be separated, since I have seen that in other cases this has been done.
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
You have my approval too. Subtypes with a different weight deserve a separated listing. What's the use of keeping statistics about weight when we put coins with different weight in the same listing?
Do what I've been doing on the early US coins I've been involved in. First, PM the referee and let them know your intent. Then create a new coin page for KM# 27.2 and submit a change request for the current KM# 27 page with changes as if the KM# 27.2 coin wasn't on the page (KM number change in the references, delete the comment about size difference, remove the year line comments on all 3, anything else needing changing). Once the new page and changes to the old page have been approved post on this forum a request to have members with 1992 coins moved to the new page and the 1992 year line deleted from the old page.
In this way the admin's work is greatly reduced and incentive for "fixing" this greatly increased. pejounet for one, has been making these type changes fairly rapidly. If you dump the entire change on them, they'll tend to not get worked very fast.
Quote: "rsirian1"Just a suggestion...
Do what I've been doing on the early US coins I've been involved in. First, PM the referee and let them know your intent. Then create a new coin page for KM# 27.2 and submit a change request for the current KM# 27 page with changes as if the KM# 27.2 coin wasn't on the page (KM number change in the references, delete the comment about size difference, remove the year line comments on all 3, anything else needing changing). Once the new page and changes to the old page have been approved post on this forum a request to have members with 1992 coins moved to the new page and the 1992 year line deleted from the old page.
In this way the admin's work is greatly reduced and incentive for "fixing" this greatly increased. pejounet for one, has been making these type changes fairly rapidly. If you dump the entire change on them, they'll tend to not get worked very fast.
Perfect, first step done, PM sent to the referee, thank you for advising me on this procedure!
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
Hello!
There are now two coins thanks to our colleague. Are members (myself included) going to be automatically moved to corresponding pages as suggested or should I do it myself?
Yes, the two separate types already exist. I contacted the Tanzania referee, he answered me quickly, I made the changes and created the new page that the referee approved immediately. Now it only remains for someone to move users to the corresponding years of each new type.
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
Quote: "Sjoelund"in the 27.2 you still find the two 27.1? In the 27.1 you only find the 27.1 (correct)!
I have moved my 1990 to the 27.1 from the 27.2.
Cheers
Ole
Hi Ole
I am the referee for Tanzania. I have messaged Pejounet about making the database changes, as suggested earlier in this thread. I have not yet received a response. (In fact, it doesn't seem that my message has even been read yet.)
pejounet is not very active for the time being, so try to find out, who else have enough qualifications to do such things? Try to PM Jarcek, he allways have bright ideas.
Quote: "Sjoelund"Hi Andrew,
pejounet is not very active for the time being, so try to find out, who else have enough qualifications to do such things? Try to PM Jarcek, he allways have bright ideas.
Thank you, Ole, for the suggestion. I have done this.
As the referee for Tanzania, I'm most grateful to all of you for your input, advice and participation in this catalogue improvement. I appreciate it very much.
