IOM & Gibraltar 2002 Pearl Black - new type or additional year line ??

Hi, I just want to confirm what you think about this case:

In 1999-2002 Pobjoy issued series of crowns commemorated The Life of Queen Mother. It was issued by Gibraltar and by IOM, usually 4 CuNi coins per year (also issued in silver, gold, in 2001 was also CuNi gold plated version). Let's say they are the “normal” one CuNi version.

In 2002, Queen Mother passed away, so Gibraltar and IOM issued also (in addition to “normal” coin) the additional version of these coins: CuNi with Pearl Black finish.

My question is: should it be listed as separate page or one coin type but with two different variants (year lines)? The metal is the same, design is the same, colour significantly differs. According the guidelines, the same type may include: different minting processes (proof strikes, polished dies, etc.) so in my opinion this is still the same type, only two different variants. But I ask because it's not so obvoius and I see that different coins from the series are listed differently:

here is one type, two variants N#132649

here are two separate pages: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces231780.html and N#50074

One thing that I'm 100% sure in this case: this should be standarized the same way for all four related designs.

And now, the similar case but little more complicated as it refers to silver coins. The same history: “normal” series continued 1999-2002 and special issue from 2002 after the death of Queen Mother - special coin has oxidated outer ring, with bright center. CDomposition on both silver 925. Below example from Gibraltar where we have both versions (listed separatly; for all 3 others we have only one listed: full silver or only silver with black finish - but I know that there are the users who have both versions and want to add the missing one):

N#81499

N#81499

Theoretically, still the same design, the same metal, difference is the Pearl Black finish on the outer part of the coin. Here, I'm more convinced to treat it as two separate pages but still not 100% sure. What is your opinion about?

Black Pearl finish was not only used in 2002. It appears also on some other Pobjoy coins (they invented it in 1990 with Black Penny crown which btw also should have the “normal” version).

They should be listed separately, as we do with all other officially coloured versions.

The manufacturing process is different, ‘Coloured’ should be added to technique for the black versions.

inc7007

They should be listed separately, as we do with all other officially coloured versions.

The manufacturing process is different, ‘Coloured’ should be added to technique for the black versions.

Different manufacturing processes are used for proof coins but they're considered the same type if they have the same composition.

rsirian1

inc7007

They should be listed separately, as we do with all other officially coloured versions.

The manufacturing process is different, ‘Coloured’ should be added to technique for the black versions.

Different manufacturing processes are used for proof coins but they're considered the same type if they have the same composition.

True, but we always list the coloured version of a coin separately if it was officially produced by the mint.

inc7007

True, but we always list the coloured version of a coin separately if it was officially produced by the mint.

Not always, I saw a lot of cases when coloured coins are listed together. Specially for the older coins (Krauze catalogues at the beginning also added second year line with “multicolor” before they started with KMxx.1 / KMxx.2.

inc7007

rsirian1

inc7007

They should be listed separately, as we do with all other officially coloured versions.

The manufacturing process is different, ‘Coloured’ should be added to technique for the black versions.

Different manufacturing processes are used for proof coins but they're considered the same type if they have the same composition.

True, but we always list the coloured version of a coin separately if it was officially produced by the mint.

Well…I wouldn't say “always.”  A very quick search:

N#131419

N#162048

N#162031

N#32686

So shouldn't the guidelines explicitly state that colored versions are a different type?

For me, the second case (silver coins) is much clearer than the first (Copper-nickel coins). I think that looking at these two coins (I assume you are referring to these), for me they should be separated.

The first case, I have many doubts, I would not consider it a colored coin as we usually understand it, but with a different finish, so perhaps it should be treated as a Proof coin, which is listed on the same page with a different year line (or variant). Furthermore, now that we have the option to include photos of variants in the new feature (Examples of the coin) the “Pearl black finish version” could be inserted there (or in comments).

Only my opinion. 😊

rsirian1

inc7007

rsirian1

inc7007

They should be listed separately, as we do with all other officially coloured versions.

The manufacturing process is different, ‘Coloured’ should be added to technique for the black versions.

Different manufacturing processes are used for proof coins but they're considered the same type if they have the same composition.

True, but we always list the coloured version of a coin separately if it was officially produced by the mint.

Well…I wouldn't say “always.”  A very quick search:

N#131419

N#162048

N#162031

N#32686

 

So shouldn't the guidelines explicitly state that colored versions are a different type?

Yes, you are absolutely right, I think this issue should (if it is not) be clear, since for me they are totally different coins. Another example of non-colored and colored coin on the same page.

N#282540

I always viewed it as a finish.  A proof finish, an unc finish, a sandblast finish, a pearl black finish.  I think it is ok to list it with the category that matches its metallic content and condition.

There is also a crown from the many tourist trophies that was issued in pearl black finish and regular finish.  I will try and find that out.

I had bought it from the mint as a pearl black and it came to me without the oxidization.

Consider that oxidation is a chemical process as well, and that we do not have different listings based on how a coin has toned.

Benjamin

You mentioned probably this one TT coin:

I'm also thinking that this Black Pearl is a version of finish like Proof or others but wanted to see what others think about… so I probably add the Black/normal lines to have both on all related pages and will ask for merge of two pages already created separatly.

The silver version with black outer ring, here, it's more complicated, I guess. I don't have these coins but lokingbon photos, this looks like bimmetallic silver-silver coin.