Misleading year shown on first 0.05 Belgian Francs [solved]

Hello everyone,

I'd like to suggest a modification to the catalogue here since the years are locked in the editor. I wasn't aware that false/error years were being used to show from what year to what other year a coin was minted, as when you scroll through the Belgian coinage it says this particular 5 cent coin was struck from 1811 to 1860, which is not the case (it's 1833-1860). Aren't we supposed to list these under the correct year and not the error year, and add the error year mention to the specific notes section to the right of each year? It's already there, i'm just not sure why the 1841 coin is being listed as minted in 1811 for the actual dating of the whole list.

Link: N#268

Example of how it's done on other coin pages: N#351447 

Could we see this changed? Thanks for your consideration.

‘Error value’ means absolutely nothing to me I'd suggest changing the wording. I also would like to see a picture of this error if it is not simply a 1 with large serif.

The 1 could also be a clogged 4 depending on how it looks. Can't wait for the each line can have a picture feature.

Is there something written about this in the guidelines? There is also the possibility to change the Gregorian year value so we would have what is on the coin (if it is really a cipher mistake) and the right year value → 1811 (1841)

Idolenz

‘Error value’ means absolutely nothing to me I'd suggest changing the wording. I also would like to see a picture of this error if it is not simply a 1 with large serif.

The 1 could also be a clogged 4 depending on how it looks. Can't wait for the each line can have a picture feature.

 

Is there something written about this in the guidelines? There is also the possibility to change the Gregorian year value so we would have what is on the coin (if it is really a cipher mistake) and the right year value → 1811 (1841)

Here's an image of one from the Lastdodo (former Catawiki) catalogue:

I can clearly see the cross line of the 4, so it's just a weak strike or grease or what not.

This would not warrant a line in my opinion, it can be mentioned in the comment section if this is a prevalent occurrence though.