Please delete duplicated variety line. [solved]

Hello: on Bolivian coin N# 27119, variety line 1778 PTS PR seems to be duplicated; both are exactly the same, I was not able to find any document or reference to there be a variation.

Please move owners to one of the lines, and delete the other.

Thanks in advance and best regards.,

Daniel.

One of those was added for overdate variety exists but the year line comment wasn't added (just my guess).

Anyway there should be an overdate year line according to CSWC:

rsirian1

One of those was added for overdate variety exists but the year line comment wasn't added (just my guess).

 

Anyway there should be an overdate year line according to CSWC:

 

I see. Problem is variety additions are not registered in history, so I can't know why was added; on the other hand, there is not a way to know that users have registered, so I think one solution would be to merge current lines and add the two overdate lines needed, but the other o/d lines are not added, only noted "overdate variety exists", so I still think best is to add note in comments and merge the lines.

I believe that's a good opportunity to update the page. Why just having “overdate variety exists”, when we know the exact overdate varieties?

With an NRI of 49 and a year line frequency 0.9% only one member has entered a coin on the second year line. I don't think that should influence a decision to clean it up and do it right.

@rsirian1  and @Trooper8 Your points make sense, so is a good opportunity to extend (or ”complicate", someone may think) the catalog.

I will add the overdate lines, and please,

1) Some admin send me via PM the owner name of 141783 line (1778PTS PR with only 1 user registered), so I can ask them to check and correct if needed.

2) Change on same line 1778 to 1778/6. Can't be done, I fixed it otherwise.

3) DO NOT MERGE NOR DELETE LINES.

Regards,

Daniel.

From the Wayback machine from 23-OCT-2012:

So it looks like it's been that way since the beginning.

Hello,

the only one user is one of those known for marking every yearline to get “green tick”. More that year of inactivity. I think no correction is needed here.

Best regards,
Jarek

Thank you so much!