rsirian, you are absolutely correct. 4 types, 8 yearlines with 2000 in double for the two types. I am sorry if I confused everyone.
I am now confused with the existing data what does it mean ½ scallops at top/bottom. Coins have same number of scallops. If one is on the top then one is on the bottom and (left and right). If 2 scallops are on the top…
And wondering about the other coins from the Ole's list (that are unconfirmed). Swaziland is complicate enough as it is with rare types and subtypes :D
rsirian, you are absolutely correct. 4 types, 8 yearlines with 2000 in double for the two types. I am sorry if I confused everyone.
I am now confused with the existing data what does it mean ½ scallops at top/bottom. Coins have same number of scallops. If one is on the top then one is on the bottom and (left and right). If 2 scallops are on the top…
And wondering about the other coins from the Ole's list (that are unconfirmed). Swaziland is complicate enough as it is with rare types and subtypes :D
You are absolutely right, either 1 at top and 1 at bottom or 2 at top and 2 at bottom. The geometry doesn't allow 1 at top and 2 at bottom. Ole recognized this in 2016 and added the existing graphic to the coin page. The year lines should have been changed from 1/2 to 1/1 at the time. I believe the 1/2 started when someone has the coin slightly rotated like this.
One minor suggestion. Maybe be consistent with what Type 1 and 2 are, i.e. use Type 1 for the 1 scallop and Type 2 for 2 scallops? Right now Type 1 is used for both 1 and 2 scallops as is Type 2.
Now I know why I wanted more year lines…. for me 1 / 2 meant two types one with 1 scallop up & down and one with 2 scallops up and down! So easy to be fooled.
I chose type 1 for the first year, where the variant started, and type 2 for the next variant. That's how we normally do it, since we don't want to put “intelligence” into the type numbers? The bust size is more important than the scallops, which only were “introduced” in 2016.
OK Type 1 (2 scallops) used for the first one in 1996 then Type 2 ( 1 scallop) for the second one in 1998. That will keep it chronological and not have them crisscross in meaning and the year lines can look like this:
Right now the Types can't go in the year lines since they are not consistent in meaning. Type 1 should mean the same thing regardless if it's for 50.1 or 50.2.
Could we make four types, along with the Ole's photo and a description it should be okay? It will be absolutely chronological. After all it's a combination of experimenting with shape and experimenting with larger bust.
OK Type 1 (2 scallops) used for the first one in 1996 then Type 2 ( 1 scallop) for the second one in 1998. That will keep it chronological and not have them crisscross in meaning and the year lines can look like this:
Right now the Types can't go in the year lines since they are not consistent in meaning. Type 1 should mean the same thing regardless if it's for 50.1 or 50.2.
Large bust:
Type 1.1 (2 scallops up and down) and
Type 1.2 (1 scallop up and down) as well as
Small bust;
type 2.1 (1 scallop up and down) and
type 2.2 (2 scallops up and down)
As I already said, we don't want any intelligence into the types… hence I suggest this, which should be invoked in the year lines as well
The Schön# should be in the generic part, not in the year lines! Not anywhere else, since Schön is NOT by year, only by types.
I'm not so sure about that. Krause is in the year lines and Krause acknowledges only 2 variants (large and small bust), while Schön acknowledges all 4 variants and with explicitly mentioning the dates, although it's not really a dates catalog.
Maybe we should exchange the type numbers in your documentation for the Schön reference numbers after all. The Schön reference numbers are universal, while the type numbers are something we've made up here on Numista.
I collect by km# and when not there I use the N# until KM catches up. Hence, I see no reason to use Schön#. This will not be the first, nor the last time, that we give our own types inside a km#.
The main point is to document the different varieties of a coin, even if the prestigious catalogs don't mention them, so collectors can be helped. I used to be a contributor to the SCWC catalogs for exactly that reason, amongst others, but now they don't seem to react to new findings, so they are not incorporated into Numismaster.
