Swaziland 20 cents 2000, type 2001 - 2005

Some months ago, on browsing this type I have noticed a promoted item being sold on jeromecollection. It's interesting as it does not belong to the single year subtype of 2000 with larger bust and scallop at the top, rather to the newer subtype we thought was started the next year (KM#50.2 (small bust) 2/2 scallops top/bottom). It's completely recut die of course, also with year numerals being different than large bust 2000, just like on other coins of 2001 to 2005.

Please add this year as well in the listings - it's can be done by the referees only. Congratulations to the fastest finger who bought it  - you've got a scarcer variety of already a scarce year :) And it's in beautiful condition.

Here's picture for the future reference.
 

Hi natbaj,

that's very interesting, please see my documentation:

Your find deserves a year line on this page N#3341. I think the coin is a mule, what is the general opinion?

Take care

Ole

It cannot be a mule. Dies need to be different for the scallop at the top - one can't be pressed over another planchet. Also please note numerals for the year are different, with “narrow” zeroes unlike oval ones for the other 2000 coins.
So in my notes for personal collection organizing I have defined 4 different subtypes. Just as defined here on numista as well.
Large bust 1996 and 2000 only, other years small bust. Combined with different scalloping we have 4 types.

This one from 2000 has small bust, just like 1998 on your photo of busts but with scallops like newer coins (by far most common, at least most available for us collectors, are the years 2001-2005). So for that year we simply have two types :)

Photo from ucoin of year 2001. Please note the same zeroes
https://en.ucoin.net/coin/swaziland-20-cents-2001/?cid=54607

I can agree on that, but how do we classify them by km#. I suggest by the size of the bust like here:

What do you think?

You're right. Basically, as here on numista says:

1996: KM#50.1 (large bust) 2/2 scallops top/bottom

1998: KM#50.2 (small bust) 1/2 scallops top/bottom

2000: KM#50.1 (large bust) 1/2 scallops top/bottom

2000-2005: KM#50.2 (small bust) 2/2 scallops top/bottom

I only pointed out to evidence of the fourth type in the year 2000 - we miss on numista listings another line for 2000: KM#50.2 (small bust) 2/2 scallops top/bottom

You can make the CR and use my graphic, if you feel like it?

I tried to add a year but a moderator needs to do it. List of the years is definite so cannot be added. No one expected this I guess :)

Feel free to do it, doesn't matter who does it, you don't even have to mention me :)

I agree there are 4 subtypes, but I'm not so sure the 2000 is part of all 4 subtypes.

Based on the existing year lines and their comments in Numista and the documentations from this thread, I conclude this table:

I cannot find owners for each variety, maybe the numista community can help? I'll try to contact “Andrew”, who actually made me do the first documentation in 2016. Maybe he's still around. I took a look at all the 20 cent coins in UCoins and could not find the missing owner/year.

Edit final version

There are only 3 proven variants of the 2000.

Comments?

I believe we're overthinking here, a bit :)

“Jerome” coin is small bust, 2 scallops at top. You have listed that you have two 2000 varieties from the list?

2001 coin, all of them I have seen so far is small bust, 2 scallops at top. 

Also I would be surprised if there are more 1998 varieties but  normal is small bust, one scallop - just as it's shown on your photo.

Excerpt from my collection list if you like excel as I do :)



 

See my post here: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic149591.html#p1180817

Can we continue only there?

And you show the same 8 year lines I did in the other post.

I made an error, I only have the large bust in 2000!

So here is the table with the data from “natbaj”

Sjoelund

So here is the table with the data from “natbaj”

Why do you have Jerome and natbaj lines? Aren't they the same 2000 SB 2/2? Remove the Jerome year line and you are left with the 8 we know about.

Right

Newest versions

Hey Ole, there's no official type number so I assume it comes from you. But I find it a bit illogical: 

The first part of your type number is logical, 1 for KM# 50.1 (large bust), 2 for KM# 50.2 (small bust).

The second part of your type number is a bit illogical. It could be .1 for 1 scallop on top and .2 for 2 scallops on top (like in the third and fourth coin). But that doesn't match with coin 1 and 2. So now we have coin 1 with 2 scallops on top is .1 and coin 4 with also 2 scallops on top is .2, which is a bit confusing.

Of course I understand where it comes from. In 1998 there was only 1 type 2. On the other hand, since there was only 1 type 2 there was no need to name it Type 2.1, just Type 2 would be sufficient. But now we know all the four types, I think it's more logical and easier to understand and remember if the numbering has a meaning: 1 and 2 for KM# 50.1 and KM# 50.2, and .1 and .2 for 1 scallop and 2 scallops on top  (and bottom).

Just my opinion of course.

I already have explained that the type is NOT supposed to be intelligent in any way. It is chronological according to the appearance on the coins. Rsirian already tried to convince me to use the same logic as you.

By the way, Schön acknowledges the four subtypes for the 20 cents too:

Schön 48.1 Large bust, 2 scallops on top, 1996

Schön 48.2 Small bust, 1 scallop on top, 1998

Schön 48.3 Large bust, 1 scallop on top, 2000

Schön 48.4 Small bust, 2 scallops on top, 2001-2003, 2005

Schön doesn't give 2000 for Schön 48.4 but Schön isn't really a date catalog, so I wouldn't take that missing 2000 there too seriously.

Sjoelund

I already have explained that the type is NOT supposed to be intelligent in any way. It is chronological according to the appearance on the coins. Rsirian already tried to convince me to use the same logic as you.

Ah, that must be in that other topic then, but I still have to read it there.

As you see, he also went chronological. With his numbering, which is not intelligent either.

Do you suggest to use type 1.1 to 1.4 as Schön?

Sjoelund

 

Do you suggest to use type 1.1 to 1.4 as Schön?

No, not necessarily. Since Schön isn't so well spread and well known as Krause since it's only available in German.

On the other hand, Schön is an offical reference book, so then the type numbers have an official reference number.

But it's up to you. The most important thing is the four variants are well documented and they are thanks to your documentation. 

@Sjoelund  @Essor Prof  @natbaj 

Year lines are unlocked. I hesitate to submit a CR until the nomenclature for each year/type is agreed upon.  Can we continue in the other post on the Catalog forum until we come to an agreement.

Also, thanks for the  Schön reference numbers. I'll add them but on the year line comments too or just in the generic reference section? Actually now that I'm thinking about it maybe the best way is to add them to the generic reference section and include in the general Comments section this.

Schön 48.1 Large bust, 2 scallops on top, 1996

Schön 48.2 Small bust, 1 scallop on top, 1998

Schön 48.3 Large bust, 1 scallop on top, 2000

Schön 48.4 Small bust, 2 scallops on top, 2000-2003, 2005 (I added the new 2000 here).

Unfortunately I don't have Schon but I know it's a very good catalog. Worked directly on it on WoC some years ago when I had more time. Soved some issues, but this is a better place for such discussions - as it's a coin catalog basically.

From some reason in my collection list I had referenced KM#50.1 to 50.4 - only the other day on topics here I realized it's only two of them depending on busts.

Since I have no active experience on the trends how to determine all the notes and types uniformly over numista I cannot help in that manner. Have seen all kinds of types across the site and as long as it's clear with descriptions or photos it is extremely useful.




 

We have gone over here https://en.numista.com/forum/ecrire_post.php?re=149591

rsirian1

 

Schön 48.4 Small bust, 2 scallops on top, 2000-2003, 2005 (I added the new 2000 here).

Because we know for sure it exists or because it's also mentioned in newer editions of Schön (mine is edition 2016)?

Essor Prof

rsirian1

 

Schön 48.4 Small bust, 2 scallops on top, 2000-2003, 2005 (I added the new 2000 here).

Because we know for sure it exists or because it's also mentioned in newer editions of Schön (mine is edition 2016)?

Because we know it exists.  I don't have a copy of Schön. I don't have a problem leaving it off if we think it's technically not correct since Schön doesn't explicitly add it. 

The existence is proven, explicitly mentioned in Schön or not, so no reason to leave it off.

Besides, whatever Krause says, whatever Schön says, whatever Numista says, if we find mistakes we should correct them. Although there's at least one referee who systematically refuses to correct mistakes in Krause, despite numerous proofs, just because it's in Krause. And we all know Krause is full of mistakes.