Can we split 2001 from the other notes? (Dominican Republic 20 Pesos Oro) [solved]

Hi All

This is the page:

20 Pesos Oro - Dominican Republic (1844-date) – Numista

The 2001 note has major design and UV differences, compared to the other notes. Should this be split?

It was discussed here in the forum:

Major differences between the 2001 note and the others – Numista

Hello!

Similar to what has been happening with some issues from Guatemala, the discussion about whether or not to split a registry arises here.

If we take into account every single tiny difference between issues from different years, we will generate many, many new registries; which in my opinion does not mean "being better organized". But anyway, these are opinions.

For this example, only the yellow and pink hues of 2001 and others could be taken into consideration. UV details, whether there are horizontal or diagonal lines in a design (which can only be seen by greatly enlarging the image), do not seem relevant to me.

We also have the fact that has not been commented on here, about the different presentations of the serial numbers: "ascending size" in 2001 and 2002; and "equal size" in 2003 and 2004.

I believe that we could report these small differences in the registry and keep a single record. There are only 4 variants, identifiable by the year of issue. We don't need two or three separate records for P#169.

Let's see/hear other opinions.

Regards,

Vladimir.

I think there should be at least 2 different pages here. Look at the horizontal band at the top. I don't think this is a minor difference. 

allexis

I think there should be at least 2 different pages here. Look at the horizontal band at the top. I don't think this is a minor difference. 

 

 

Hello, @allexis. 

You're right. That images show a clear difference between the 2001 version and the others. The other details that were discussed in the mentioned forum, except for the color (yellow vs. pink), are not easily perceived by the eyes of a less experienced collector.

I therefore invite the referee @adanieluy to give his opinion on the subject.

Thank you!

Vladimir.

I agree with Allexis.  But I should encourage him to not hold his breath.  This isn't a matter of opinion.  The new page needs created.

What we actually need are two entries, the first (narrow band) for P#160 (2000) and P#169a (2001), the second (wide band) for P#169b (2002), P#169c (2003) and P#169d (2004). This will require moving the yearline for 2001 to the existing P#160 entry and replacing the image for P#169 with the correct image. Images are to be found at Bank Note Museum: P#160, P#169. It seems SCWPM split on printer rather than design.

Is @adanieluy on board with this?

Jarcek

Is @adanieluy on board with this?

As I see, the differences on these notes are not so important or critical to split the page. As said on the thread, Pick usually splits codes based on change of printer, but this kind of differences are not worth to split code.

On my opinion, there are obvious details to take into account to split pages, some are so noticeable and important that are out of discussion, like country, face value, country or issuer name (unless it is a transformation, in certain cases). Others are important, and need too few discussion, like different size, material or color (not tones, but different color).

I think a coherent way to split in same face value would be the design, while the variations are small, and as said before “are not easily perceived by the eyes of a less experienced collector”. When an issuer fully changes the design, of course is to be split. When the design remains basically the same, and some details are changed, due to redoing the design by a new printer, or just the addition of new security features, correcting small mistakes, etc., then it is a variety.

On guidelines we can find “In the Numista catalogue, the varieties are listed on the same page related to the banknote type. The varieties can be described in the comment field and they are listed as separate variety lines.”

On the images at start of this thread, you can play “find the differences” and find the bar on top is a bit wider, semicircle to right of that bar is placed a bit higher (you can notice the position of “20” with respect to semicircle, serial #s are  placed higher, underprint is different tone, some elements are a bit displaced… but in all cases, you can notice it only by comparing the notes (or in some cases, if you know what you are looking for). I see them as small changes.

My concern is if we take into account small details to split pages, we may end with hundreds of pages, then user should need to browse dozens of them to find the tiny details; with more merged pages, the user would have a list of the variations on the same page, making easier to understand and making his decision on how and what to collect.

We can see the examples given on the guidelines https://en.numista.com/help/banknote-varieties-and-variations-144.html and we can see even the adding of elements are considered as variations:

• Legend varieties (imprint, engraver’s name, serial number font or colour…)
  • 10 000 Réis — “BRASIL” and “BRAZIL” varieties
• Signature varieties
  • 1000 Francs — Signature varieties
• Small design varieties
  • 50 Hellers — Border varieties
• Paper varieties
  • 100 Kronen — thin and thick paper
• Watermark patterns
  • 50 000 000 Marks — crossed flower watermark pattern, hooked stars watermark pattern, etc.
• Small colour changes
  • 5 000 000 000 Marks — colourless or lilac border
• Minor design and lettering changes corresponding to different printers
  • 5000 Drams — Austrian and British printer varieties

My opinion is to keep those notes together, since the variations are not so big (big on concept, more than on size), to deserve to be split.

If Admins opinion is different, I will accept it and act accordingly, but so far I understand there is no change needed.

As long as all varieties are explained (preffably also with example pictures on yearlines), I am all good.

The differences for these notes are more significant that most of those listed. These are quite clear design differences, not paper, watermark or signature changes. I suspect once the images are prepared, it will be clear that separate pages are needed. That said, the images will be required for the new pages, so it won't be a wasted effort.

Here are animated GIFs showing 2001 note vs 2003:

This is not a minimal change anymore … please split.

Question remains if we make separate page for 2001 note (P#169a) or we add it to the 2000 note ( P# 160). As far as I can see there are no major differences between 2000 note and 2001 note, all the differences of the 2001 note pointed out by @odd job in this post correspond to the chracteristics of the 2000 (as far as I can see, as I don't have both notes in hand). Even makes me think they might have been printed at the same facility …

So no split needed then, just create a new yearline for 2001 (and specimen version) on the 2000 note page and move users … and then update the picture on the 2002-2004 page.

I can help! Here is 2000 vs 2001:

Bram's suggestion is the best, in my opinion.

These can be the replacement images for the 2002-2004 page:

That's one of my 2003 notes.

If this is a minor difference, I have no words…

Hello everyone!

Daniel and I exchanged information today and researched these early 2000s Dominican Republic issues.

Indeed, there are differences in the width of the strip above the obverse portrait (which, I think, is the most prominent) and other very noticeable differences. Therefore, we are suggesting adjusting the registrations on two separate pages as follows.

On one page we would have the records of P#160a, P#160s, P#169a and P#169s1, with the title 20 Pesos Oro (narrow band above portrait on observe). This page would have the issues of the years 2000 and 2001, information on subscriptions, printing houses, etc.

On another page, we would have the records of the P#169b/c/d issues (2002-2004) with their respective Specimens, with the title 20 Pesos Oro (wide band above portrait on observe); also with information on signatures, printing house (De La Rue), style of the serial number digits, etc.

We believe that this way, the records would be better organized and we would be able to meet the proposals of the users who are contributing to this discussion.

I look forward to your comments regarding these 20 Pesos records so we can make the necessary adjustments to other issues during this same period. =)

Regards,

Vladimir.

Perfect 😉

Looks good to me too.

Similar needed for 10 and 100 pesos oro:

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC - BANCO CENTRAL DE LA REPÚBLICA DOMINICANA

Good job!

Hello! Thank you to everyone involved in the suggestions.

I've already proposed the changes to the pages and will await approval. Once we resolve the 20 Pesos pages, we'll adjust the remaining 10 and 100 Pesos pages in a similar manner.

Regards,

Vladimir