In my opinion, the km127 should be split 1996-2008 as is, and then a new page for the coins from 2017 and onwards. The reason for this demand is clear from this documentation (a major design change!)
It's a bit difficult to make a CR change request for this, since I as a simple user cannot split an existing reference.
Agreed. In addition to the added star, the coat of arms has been significantly redesigned. The 5 Centésimos, ¼ Balboa, ½ Balboa and 1 Balboa also need splitting for the same reason.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Actually they are already split somewhat. SCWC puts all 6 years as KM# 127. From the 2019 edition:
However, Numismaster recognizes the differences and splits them into KM# 127.1 (1996-2008) and KM# 127.2 (2017-2019). So, the Numista page showing the 2008 as KM# 127.2 is in error. It should say KM# 127.1.
So the question becomes, should KM# 127.1(1996-2008) and KM# 127.2 (2017-2019) be on separate pages?
The coat of arms look almost identical between the two issues. I'm willing to be persuaded, but I'm leaning to keep the pages together.
The arms themselves are heraldicaly the same but the “style” has changed. The shield is round at the bottom rather than pointed, the bird at the top is less stylized and lower relative to the lettering, the flags are in a different position relative to the shield (note that the stars are higher) and the flag poles are less vertical. Added to the extra star above and the changes on the reverse (the portrait has undergone some minor alterations too), this is a significant redesign. I'm not surprised SCWC only gives the two versions “.1” and “.2” but we split plenty of other pages on this kind of difference.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
You know, numismaster has km127.1 going up to 2008
The 127.2 is not known by numismaster, but somehow NUMISTA managed to create it? So when I say that 2017 up to now are different coins, I'm right and the first graphic showing the difference between 127.1 and .2 has no reason to be at all. It actually only shows two varieties inside the same km-Sub#, right?
You know, numismaster has km127.1 going up to 2008
The 127.2 is not known by numismaster, but somehow NUMISTA managed to create it? So when I say that 2017 up to now are different coins, I'm right and the first graphic showing the difference between 127.1 and .2 has no reason to be at all. It actually only shows two varieties inside the same km-Sub#, right?
It's a crooked world😜
No. Look above where I posted the Numismaster listing for both 127.1 (1996-2008) and 127.2 (2017-2019).
Interesting. I just reproduced what you found. I attribute it to the fact that Numismaster search function is absolutely horrible. Note that it returned coins that are not 1/10 balboa also. Here's my search for “panama balboa” which gave 34 matches including 127.1 and 127.2:
And a different search for “balboa” under country “Panama” which gave 128 matches including 127.1 and 127.2:
The arms themselves are heraldicaly the same but the “style” has changed. The shield is round at the bottom rather than pointed, the bird at the top is less stylized and lower relative to the lettering, the flags are in a different position relative to the shield (note that the stars are higher) and the flag poles are less vertical. Added to the extra star above and the changes on the reverse (the portrait has undergone some minor alterations too), this is a significant redesign. I'm not surprised SCWC only gives the two versions “.1” and “.2” but we split plenty of other pages on this kind of difference.
Now I am seeing the differences. However, they are so minor that the average user will be confused and believe that their coin is missing. As such, I will not be splitting the pages.
Master Coin Referee
Coin referee for CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN, and SLV.
Revisor principal de monedas
Revisor de Numista para monedas de CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN y SLV.
The arms themselves are heraldicaly the same but the “style” has changed. The shield is round at the bottom rather than pointed, the bird at the top is less stylized and lower relative to the lettering, the flags are in a different position relative to the shield (note that the stars are higher) and the flag poles are less vertical. Added to the extra star above and the changes on the reverse (the portrait has undergone some minor alterations too), this is a significant redesign. I'm not surprised SCWC only gives the two versions “.1” and “.2” but we split plenty of other pages on this kind of difference.
Now I am seeing the differences. However, they are so minor that the average user will be confused and believe that their coin is missing. As such, I will not be splitting the pages.
Forget the notes from ceh2019, they are no help anyway, and look at these:
Here you have the real differences, which can be seen and understood by normal people…..
Now I am seeing the differences. However, they are so minor that the average user will be confused and believe that their coin is missing. As such, I will not be splitting the pages.
If you put the images of the two shields next to one another, the differences are obvious. It's the combination of a lot of small changes that add up to a complete redesign. Ole may be right that the number of stars and flowers are the easiest to spot, what I'm pointing out are the additional differences that reinforce the need to divide all of these coins into two pages each. It's also worth noting that the number of flowers only changes for the 1/10, not for the ¼ or ½ balboa.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
These types of decisions cannot be made by a referee, there should be clear criteria in Numista to split two pages and thus have a general catalog with a single criterion. If there were standard criteria, the referees could make decisions based on that criteria and not based on personal decisions.
On this particular Panamá issue, it is clear to me that it should be splited, but since there is no general criteria, everything remains in personal opinions. It should not be like that. In cases like Oman and Romania (very similar) the pages were splited. Criteria must be unified.
These types of decisions cannot be made by a referee, there should be clear criteria in Numista to split two pages and thus have a general catalog with a single criterion. If there were standard criteria, the referees could make decisions based on that criteria and not based on personal decisions.
On this particular Panamá issue, it is clear to me that it should be splited, but since there is no general criteria, everything remains in personal opinions. It should not be like that. In cases like Oman and Romania (very similar) the pages were splited. Criteria must be unified.
You are right that we need clear criteria but I fear there will always be cases, even with clear criteria, that opinions come into play. From a personal perspective, I like to see splits in pages so that I can select each type I'm missing in my wishlist. If I feel the difference is too small, I can select both types together. As for Panama, I've just bought the 2017 set (thanks to Ole for alerting me to the differences) so I'm happy either way as far as my collection goes. Of course, if we could select yearlines in our wishlists, this wouldn't be a problem.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Now I am seeing the differences. However, they are so minor that the average user will be confused and believe that their coin is missing. As such, I will not be splitting the pages.
If you put the images of the two shields next to one another, the differences are obvious. It's the combination of a lot of small changes that add up to a complete redesign. Ole may be right that the number of stars and flowers are the easiest to spot, what I'm pointing out are the additional differences that reinforce the need to divide all of these coins into two pages each. It's also worth noting that the number of flowers only changes for the 1/10, not for the ¼ or ½ balboa.
Ceh is right of course, it's just there is little room in my graphics to describe every difference, hence I stick to obvious ones.
These types of decisions cannot be made by a referee, there should be clear criteria in Numista to split two pages and thus have a general catalog with a single criterion. If there were standard criteria, the referees could make decisions based on that criteria and not based on personal decisions.
On this particular Panamá issue, it is clear to me that it should be splited, but since there is no general criteria, everything remains in personal opinions. It should not be like that. In cases like Oman and Romania (very similar) the pages were splited. Criteria must be unified.
You are right that we need clear criteria but I fear there will always be cases, even with clear criteria, that opinions come into play. From a personal perspective, I like to see splits in pages so that I can select each type I'm missing in my wishlist. If I feel the difference is too small, I can select both types together. As for Panama, I've just bought the 2017 set (thanks to Ole for alerting me to the differences) so I'm happy either way as far as my collection goes. Of course, if we could select yearlines in our wishlists, this wouldn't be a problem.
Unfortunately you can't select your wishlist according to the year lines, Xavier set up numista for type collectors. Anyway I don't need a wishlist, in the swap lists of others I just select, what I miss….
As far as I can see, I believe this is a case of both different legend and “Differences in the design of a device”. Even though differences may be insignificant, which is subjective, there is also “The presence or absence of a design device” (10th star). If we lock year lists and add see also links + comment + infographic from Ole, I believe people could find their coins.
Hello, I recover this topic, since I see that, despite having 6 upvotes and only one downvote and that I think Jarek's explanations were quite clarifying, the 5 Centesimos, 1/10, ¼, ½, and 1 Balboa coins have not yet been separated into two different pages. Is it for any particular reason?
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
