Absurd in dragon types

The article N#15169

has line in Comments

For difference of Type I and Type II dragon, see recorded sales section.

And the recorded sales section looks like

Note that the Numista site as for swaps, that is why in order to follow the Numista policy the last column is not  shown on the photo.

It is easy to find out, that the article developers know the difference between two types of the dragon but keep it as complete top secret.

Is it possible to add lines, explaining how to attribute the types I and II,  and additionally (optional, though still important) in which years they were used and the rarity of there distribution? In this way the absurd of the article will be overcome.

The types are defined in the article!

Yes, and if you look at the images in the recorded sales section, you can clearly see the difference of the respective dragons. I agree it could have be in the comments section, but there is nothing for admin to solve. Please either make standard modification request or message the referee.