Position A and B....

Hi,

I'm sorry but I cannot see the use of having two lines in the catalog for this, like for this
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces71139.html

I suggest to eliminate the B line and modify the A line with a text saying: Exists with A and B positions

Edit 29/01/2018
In changing this you just have to add the two lines together

People collecting their coins by position can then make a personal comment to their year to document which position or positions they have.

I have noticed that when you swap for a given position, be it A or B, in 50% of the cases your partner got it wrong!

Edit 29/01/2018
In changing this you just have to add the two lines together. If in a swap somebody really wants to know, they can still ask their partner, if he would be so nice to indicate if it's A or B!
End edit

So what is the use of the split into two lines? When the coins are minted they have a 50% chance to be type A or type B, but that's another discussion.

Ole

Yes, please abolish this A/B distinction.

Hear hear ... unless it's warranted where one orientation should be but isn't like in the case of the old 5 France pieces of Belgium

+1

Quote: "Idolenz"​Hear hear ... unless it's warranted where one orientation should be but isn't like in the case of the old 5 France pieces of Belgium

​and that's where it all started. The Belgian coins I have with A and B, which is OK, but only there!

Ole

Hello.
There are also Canadian coins in the catalog with such a division. I'm also against this.

Edit:
done

and the newer American dollars.... Romania also have some 50 bani with A and B!!! There are certainly others just escaping me now.

Ole

Some Spanish pesetas have A/B positions.

SO, ...  !!! while you're at, why not delete the mint mark annotation also ....  ????

Quote: "derf"​SO, ...  !!! while you're at, why not delete the mint mark annotation also ....  ????

​and how did the mint marks come into the discussion???? I don't understand how you connect them to the A and B positions?

Ole

It should be only there where it is justified - aka Belgium. Where it is random 50x50, let's erase it.

Hi Jarek,

Not erase it, but just make a comment like this "Is found with pos A & B" on the single year line remaining. People can then, if they collect by A & B, give that information in the personal comments field.

Ole

I would only point out A/B option in the edge field or the comment field as it applies for all years ... This to prevent the year-comment-field from being overloaded.

I can easily live with that...

Ole

Quote: "Jarcek"​It should be only there where it is justified - aka Belgium. Where it is random 50x50, lets erase it.
​
​

​It would be nice to fix it in the rules.

I like how the US did it with the Olympic baseball coin. The lettering alternated up down up down on the same coin.. frustrated dozens of Belgian collectors. ( just teasing any Belgian friends.)

Quote: "Oklahoman"​I like how the US did it with the Olympic baseball coin. The lettering alternated up down up down on the same coin.. frustrated dozens of Belgian collectors. ( just teasing any Belgian friends.)

​Hi,

I just suppose that kind of "dirty" tricks would make some people start to collect on starting points of the never ending rim.....

Ole

Lol. We collectors can be some kind of passionate sometimes!

Quote: "Sjoelund"​

Quote: "derf"​SO, ...  !!! while you're at, why not delete the mint mark annotation also ....  ????

​​and how did the mint marks come into the discussion???? I don't understand how you connect them to the A and B positions?
​
​Ole

​I am 100% for getting rid of the silly A vs B thing. It's at random. I've been pushing for this for years.

I'm following the rule to combine A & B since I have received this instruction in 2016. I support this decision. As to merge the dates (before 2016) that have this distinction is beyond my authority.

Oh my, to which poor soul I promised to get rid of all those! Anyway I am sorry.

Hello,

I don't make a distinction in A/B my self, but for the ones who do why not let them have it ?!?

Does this create a problem for others ? If not, why change what is in place already ?

Respectfully,

André

P.S, Sorry for the translation, I used google for english.

Hi André,

the problem is when you swap.... most people just enter their coin in the first line (50% chance of the coin belonging there). If you collect by position, you might get the proper coin in 50% of the cases, but is that good enough for you? When you swap, you can see your partner's comments, so if he's bothered to say if the coin is Pos A or B, you ought to believe him. If nothing is said about, you're back to the 50/50!

le problème est quand tu fais une échange... le plupart de gens saisissent leur pièce dans la première ligne (50% de chance que la pièce est dans la ligne correcte). Si tu collecte par position, tu reçoit la pièce correcte dans 50% de cas, mais est-ce-que assez bien pour toi? Quand tu fais une échange tu peux lire les commentaires de ton partenaire et si il a écrit que sa pièce est soit Pos A ou B, tu peux être sure a 99% que c'est vraiment ça. Si il n y a pas des commentaires tu retourne vers 50/50!

Ole

Quote: "bbybugs"​
​
​I'm following the rule to combine A & B since I have received this instruction in 2016. I support this decision. As to merge the dates (before 2016) that have this distinction is beyond my authority.
​
​

​I see it's already done for Canada so what happen to the inventory of those who entered coins when the distinction was made between A an d B ??? I remember at first entering my coins with this distinction. Did someone adjusted the quantity automatically or do have to redo my inventory for those coins ???

In the french description some times I see this Tirage A et B / Tranche A (Lettres dirigées vers l'avers) to help people distinguish wich are A's from B's. I find it usefull ans suggest we all do this.

Regards,

André

Hi,

I thought the agreement was to leave a fixed text saying something similar to this for each year line:
Position A & B exist. This has not been done!
or Tirage A et B / Tranche A (Lettres dirigées vers l'avers) = Position A and B exist / Edge of A (Letters towards the obverse) / B (Letters towards the reverse)

If a person has a coin in the line with Pos A and also a coin in the line with Pos B, then the new resulting line should add the two lines, so would you now find 2 coins in the the new line. This seems to be the case, I've checked my 50 bani coins (km192), BUT a new personal comment had been created as well. The line showed TWO coins, but the comment mentioned only the Pos B coin?

Ole

Hello again,

Even if i'm new as a referee and it seems like no one else agree's with me...

In my opinion, if only one person (and I know that some people do in Canada) collect those coins with the distinction between A and B, we should, on this site, offer the possibility to do so and inventory them as well.

If it was important to me as a collector I would really appreciate being able to use the option and very usefull to rapidly view if i'm missing a variety.

Is it not just one of the bases of collecting to get one coin of every variety when it exist?

The trading problem you are mentionning comes after collecting and inventorying and can be solved with good communications. To me it's not relevant at the collection and inventoring stage. Before any trade, trading partners should make sure they are trading the right coin variety if there is a variety to the coin they are trading...no ?

Best regards,

André

Quote: "Québécois"​Hello again,

​​The trading problem you are mentionning comes after collecting and inventorying and can be solved with good communications. To me it's not relevant at the collection and inventoring stage. Before any trade, trading partners should make sure they are trading the right coin variety if there is a variety to the coin they are trading...no ?
​
​Best regards,
​
​André

​If we had left it like it was, then we would know, that those lines would not be truthful. I have up to now never been asked if my coins for swap were A or B!

Now, if people collect by A and B, they can still ask when trading. The people collectiong like that can write in their personel comment on the line: (Pos A) or (Pos B ) or (Pos A & B), that way they personally know excactly what they have, just like before. The count is still correct.

Ole

I like that people can write in their comments if they have A or B. This also allows for collectors who do not use the designation to be able to complete listings by date. Something they cannot do if they have to choose A or B. By designating in comments, we accommodate all of the ways of collecting, A or B or nothing at all.

Quote: "Sjoelund"​

Quote: "Québécois"​Hello again,
​
​​​The trading problem you are mentionning comes after collecting and inventorying and can be solved with good communications. To me it's not relevant at the collection and inventoring stage. Before any trade, trading partners should make sure they are trading the right coin variety if there is a variety to the coin they are trading...no ?
​​
​​Best regards,
​​
​​André
​
​
​
​

​​If we had left it like it was, then we would know, that those lines would not be truthful. I have up to now never been asked if my coins for swap were A or B!
​
​Now, if people collect by A and B, they can still ask when trading. The people collectiong like that can write in their personel comment on the line: (Pos A) or (Pos or (Pos A & B), that way they personally know excactly what they have, just like before. The count is still correct.
​
​Ole

​My friend Sjoelind,

It seems like I really don't get your point and that we will never agree on this.

It's not because you were never ask for a coin of type A or B that other people didn't. I took a quick look at your collection, you don't have any of these Canadian coins of type A or B up to trade. Maybe this explains why you were never asked. ;-)

Those are types of coins that exist and as a collector I should be able to quickly differentiate them in my inventory. As a collector I would like to know how many coins of type A and how many of type B I have in my collection without having to go trought the comment field to find out. I would like to quickly know if I am missing a type for a specific year.

We are not talking about errors here but types of coins that were stroke intentionnaly this way.

The real question is... If someone is too ignorant or lazy to properly identify his coins should we all do the same ???

If I push your thinking to the limit, why bother differentiate a year from another one, I could just use the comment field and enter the years there.

Regards,

Hi,

I see where you're heading, but it's a bit simplistic I find. As you certainly know, that if somebody is into variants, it's me. Now Pos A and B are NOT variants, just a happenchance, which can go either A or B and with the law of big numbers, they are distributed evenly with 50% to each.

For years I DID collect by position, but after numerous discussions on this forum I also finshed by accepting the idea of not collecting coins like that any longer (in 2014, I think). In my collection excel sheet, I still have the Pos A and B from the time before. Even in Numista!

Look here https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces4768.html
My page looks like this now:

and I'll leave it like that and live happily ever after. Now I can be flexible, give in the information or not, just as I feel that given day.

Ole

I'm glad this has already been decided. I agree that this is a randomness that folks could put in their own comments.

Quote: "Sjoelund"​Hi,
​
​I see where you're heading, but it's a bit simplistic I find. As you certainly, that if somebody is into variants, it's me. Now Pos A and B are NOT variants, just a happenchance, which can go either A or B and with the law of big numbers, they are distributed evenly with 50% to each.
​
​For years I DID collect by position, but after numerous discussions on this forum I also finshed by accepting the idea of not collecting coins like that any longer (in 2014, I think). In my collection excel sheet, I still have the Pos A and B from the time before. Even in Numista!
​
​Look here https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces4768.html
​My page looks like this now:
​
​and I'll leave it like that and live happily ever after. Now I can be flexible, give in the information or not, just as I feel that given day.
​
​Ole
​

​Hi again,

I don't care what are the chances of a coin to be of type A or type B when they are stroke. When you buy a roll of 25 coins, you can get 20 coins of type A and 5 coins of type B...or 25 type A and none of type b. Same with the 5 coins sets they are selling (you can get 5 coins of a type and none of the other). For some people if they don't have a type B in their 25 coins roll or 5 coins set, they will be looking for them. It's their way of collecting and they have the right to do so... don't you think ?

I'm from Canada and I can assure you that when the new coins got out with these lettering, people were trading coins like crazy to make sure they had both type A and type B in their collection. You can verify this on the Numicanada free site witch is a great, if not the greatest, french reference site for Canadian coins.

Now you all have to realise that this still matters to some collectors in Canada. From your point of view it might not be relevant but...hey... you are not the ones who are collecting these coins so why try to transpose your reallity and views ?!?

Now I don't know if there is still an opening to debate this but I will see with the other canadian referee what he thinks of it.

Best regards,

André

P.S. http://www.numicanada.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=15523&hilit=Type+A+type+B+deux+dollars

Hi André,

but nothing has really changed, have a look at my Romanian 50 bani coins. Your compatriots and everybody else can still collect by position, see my 5 bani coins again.



Ole

Quote: "Québécois"​I'm from Canada and I can assure you that when the new coins got out with these lettering, people were trading coins like crazy to make sure they had both type A and type B in their collection. You can verify this on the Numicanada free site witch is a great, if not the greatest, french reference site for Canadian coins.
​
​Best regards,
​
​André
​
​P.S. http://www.numicanada.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=15523&hilit=Type+A+type+B+deux+dollars
​
​

​Hi again,

I don't mind at all that Canada would still stay with two lines, one pos A and one Pos B, but if it that is accepted, then please make a THIRD line for the people not caring (Pos A or Pos B).

This is called a compromise to make EVERYBODY happy.

Have a nice Sunday evening

Ole

Oh boy...

In this case, a third type doesn't exist. I don't see why we should add a line.

We should NOT add a line for every coin that beginners aren't able (or are to lazy) to identify correctly.

Sorry I don't agree again.

It seems like time proved the overall value and rarity of type A and B are the same for Canadian coins, so this is not really an issue anymore. It was was back in 2012 when collectors were looking for the 2 types of coins like if their collection value was depending on this. Probably, if you ask them today, most of them would have a different point of view now. Since a merge of type A and B was done for Canadian coins, I would not change it back.

The reason I am arguing is that the value or rarity might be different for future coins and I still think we should have different types on different lines (like it was in the beginning). With out proper knowledge of rarity and value of a type of coin, it is the right thing to do, at the moment of creation of the coin, to differenciate the types. True we can allways adjust later on... if having different types isn't usefull to anyone (value wise or numismatically wise).

André

Hi André,

I give up. Help yourself to the last communication.

Ciao

Ole

Quote: "Sjoelund"​... but if it that is accepted, then please make a THIRD line for the people not caring (Pos A or Pos B)...

And while your at it please add 359 additional lines for every line in A and B for the different startings of the text, they have the same legitimacy as position A&B

Quote: "Oklahoman"​I'm glad this has already been decided. I agree that this is a randomness that folks could put in their own comments.

​Thanks to the friends

Ole

Quote: "Sjoelund"​

Quote: "Oklahoman"​I like how the US did it with the Olympic baseball coin. The lettering alternated up down up down on the same coin.. frustrated dozens of Belgian collectors. ( just teasing any Belgian friends.)

​​Hi,
​
​I just suppose that kind of "dirty" tricks would make some people start to collect on starting points of the never ending rim.....
​
​Ole

​As I mentioned earlier.....

Ole

Quote: "Québécois"​Even if i'm new as a referee and it seems like no one else agree's with me...

​Hey André, don't worry, you're not the only one on this, I'm 100 % agreed with your vision.

People who like it will use every argument to defend it, people who don't like it will use every argument to oppose it. That's the way it is and it probably will never change. I can live with that.
BUT if you use some arguments take good care and be honest to avoid cutting in your own fingers. Ole, your main argument is "I have noticed that when you swap for a given position, in 50% of the cases your partner got it wrong!". I have to agree on that, that's why I always ask my swap partner to verify the edge position. The reason is people who don't care about the edge position don't make an effort to thick the right box, and no problem, I can totally understand that, hence my asking when I select such a coin in a swap.
But: Ole, you're a big lover of varieties, me too, but most of the collectors don't care about varieties and as a result I have noticed that when you swap varieties in 50% of the cases your partner got it wrong! So what's next? Deleting the year lines for varieties and merge the year lines and variety collectors should put a personal comment in the comment box? If we follow your main argument for the edge position we should use if for varieties as well because it is exactly the same argument and I'm sure then you won't be happy at all, on the contrary.

Quote: "Oklahoman"I like that people can write in their comments if they have A or This also allows for collectors who do not use the designation to be able to complete listings by date. Something they cannot do if they have to choose A or By designating in comments, we accommodate all of the ways of collecting, A or B or nothing at all.

This looks easy but it isn't. You only look from the opponent's point of view but you forget one very important thing for the proponent: if we merge the A and B lines we never see the blue exclamation mark anymore while checking an exchange list as soon as we have one of the two edge positions for a certain year. So we never can swap edge positions anymore unless we go back to the stone age and check exchange lists manually instead of using our fantastic Numista swap program.
So I rather take the chance my swap partner has the edge position wrong and I have to ask him first before finishing a swap.

There is that...yeesh...

Quote: "Oklahoman"​There is that...yeesh...

​My google translate says "yeesh" is Somalian. So I have absolutely no idea what you mean.

Essor Prof
If we merge the A and B lines we never see the blue exclamation mark anymore while checking an exchange list as soon as we have one of the two edge positions for a certain year. So we never can swap edge positions anymore unless we go back to the stone age and check exchange lists manually instead of using our fantastic Numista swap program.

That's true, but doesn't that imply, that we need a third line, for the people ignoring the Pos A / B? You can not force collectors to look at the edges and remember how to determine the writing compared to the obverse and reverse sides of the coin......

Ole

Hello.
All Soviet commemorative coins 1 ruble, all Russian commemorative bimetallic coins 10 rubles have inscriptions on the edge. And I consistently reject proposals to divide them into types A and B . Because there is no such in any catalog, because the catalog will cease to be convenient for everyone, because for this there are personal comments.
And there are old silver and gold coins with inscriptions on the edge, there are almost all types of coins 2 euros. For all cases that are random (orientation of the inscription, defective stamping, stamp depreciation, random orientation when hand-stamping medieval coins) there are personal comments.

The reason collectors collect by date or variety is because some are less common than others. In almost all cases, A/B are equally common. Why bother?

I refuse to double the burden and expense of collecting edge-lettered coins just to include a purely random non-distinction that rarely has meaningful numismatic importance.

Yes, please remove the A/B designations for ALL coins. As far as the US is concerned, only the grading companies make the distinction, IMO it's because it allows them to sell more slabs. A simple comment about the two types would suffice.

Sooo...what are we going to do?

I agree with getting rid of A & B ... It's a pain in the A(rse) .. or is it the B(um)?

Lol - Mike

I do not agree with removing them, but they are being removed by year for the US.

Obviously and luckily they will be removed.

I'm a big fan of coin varieties, but for me posA and posB are the same, if the lettering is exactly the same.

But the further problem would be Malaysia 50 Sen (KM#53). They have many different edge lettering. I think this is more important than posA/posB, as the edge is the third side of the coins.

Found another page
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces683.html

Hello,

For the french coins, these differences must be keep for some reasons : it concerned only one type of coins : 10 francs Mathieu and commemoratives : It's the only french coin with slice different position.
These two positions have different lines in Le Franc, the reference book for french coins, so many french coin collectors collect the two slices. It's the only time of the french Franc that the new technical struck does two different slices.
When the particularity is collected so much, i think it can be conserved on Numista.
If you errase this, why don't you errase some other varieties of french coins : i speak about the 9 / 2 / 3 closed ou opened for the 20s 30s coins ? (50 cts / 1 fr / 2 frs Domard et Morlon bronze-aluminium)
Theses varieties on Numista aren't in Le Franc for a good reason : for the scientific comity edition, a variety is defined by a different die or matrix. The 9 / 2 / 3 opened or closed don't come from a different die or matrix : there are conserved to MDP and when there are observed, they see that fo each year, there are an only matrix with opened numbers : the closed numbers come from stuffy die in numbers.

But here, for the two slices, it's not a different equipment that created this, it's a different struck technical. In itself, for the same year, it's two different coins : one with the A position slice and one with the B position slice.

These difference can be see on 2 euros but it's all on two euros, every time and states that it can be see. It's not a particularity of one state, or for one year or for one coin type. Moreover, the difference for 2 euro is collected by a minimal group of collectors, the difference isn't entered in reference book.

I preach for french coins but i think it can be conserved because it's in the greastest french coins book and for the numbers of collectors.

Sorry if my english is sometimes approximative.

what do you mean with "erase pos A and B"? for coins like this it's a a huge difference between pos A and pos B..

Quote: "ngdawa"​what do you mean with "erase pos A and B"? for coins like this it's a a huge difference between pos A and pos B..

​For coins where edge text orientation actually matters, we should say so in the comments, and allow the A/B lines to remain.

But for most edge lettered coins, A/B is insignificant.

Quote: "ngdawa"​what do you mean with "erase pos A and B"? for coins like this it's a a huge difference between pos A and pos B..

​What does this mean for the catalogue? This can only be relevant for certain collectors, for this there are personal comments.
It seems that this dispute will never end. It would be good to write this question in the guideline.

Edit: done.

Quote: "Cyrillius"​​What does this mean for the catalogue? This can only be relevant for certain collectors, for this there are personal comments.
​It seems that this dispute will never end. It would be good to write this question in the guideline.

​for the catalogue it means a lot! it'll make the catalogue more complete and accurate with the reality..one could argue the same with km#'s, especially when it comes to ".1" and ".2" etc..

then, what it what means for the collectors on this site, well, that's a different story..i won't make a fuzz and fight for this, but i would be sad to see the details disappear..it's the details that make this site even more special..but if there is a vote and the majority votes for remove it, then that's the way we'll go..

There was already a discussion here, there was already a solution (look at the whole topic). And we return to this question again. Unbelievable. And we are not talking about registering any important or unimportant differences (by the way, which make some pages simply unused. Well, let's register dates with each stamp number?). We are talking only about the random orientation of the inscription on the edge.

This was decided a long time ago. Keep lines where it is relevant and not 50/50 chance.

Where it is a chance, comment is sufficient.

Quote: "ngdawa"​

Quote: "Cyrillius"​​What does this mean for the catalogue? This can only be relevant for certain collectors, for this there are personal comments.
​​It seems that this dispute will never end. It would be good to write this question in the guideline.

​​for the catalogue it means a lot! it'll make the catalogue more complete and accurate with the reality..one could argue the same with km#'s, especially when it comes to ".1" and ".2" etc..
​
​then, what it what means for the collectors on this site, well, that's a different story..i won't make a fuzz and fight for this, but i would be sad to see the details disappear..it's the details that make this site even more special..but if there is a vote and the majority votes for remove it, then that's the way we'll go..

​The details will remain in the comments, but at least the errors in swapping will be eliminated....

Please allow me to use this post, to pose my question.

I'm not reopening discussion on whether position A or B should get separate lines in the catalogue. Personally I do like collecting different (edge) positions, and it does have value to me, because it is the only way to discover if there is really a 50/50 division. But I use ‘public comment’ to note which position my coin has if the catalogue doesn't give me two lines.

 

My problem is, that I don't find consensus in what is position A or B.

If I scroll through different posts, this subject isn't discussed or there are contradictory explanations.

 

In previous posts I find this:

 

(option 1)

In the Standard Catalogue of World Coins :
«
Position A: Coins with portrait side down having upright edge lettering.
Position B: Coins with portrait side up having upright edge lettering.

 

Or this:

 

(option 2)

Still could not find the topic or my pictures, so I made some new ones just now. Here I show two identical coins I have with the England flag version of the UK £2 coin for the 2002 Commonwealth Games.

 The only difference between the two coins is the edge lettering position. I chose the word SPIRIT in the edge lettering to show in the front of the pictures.  

 

If I go through the numista catalogue, I find these explanations:

 

Position A: edge lettering reads upside-down when the portrait faces up
Position B: edge lettering reads normally when the portrait faces up

1 Dollar "Native American Dollar" (Mohawk Ironworkers) - United States – Numista

(= option 1)

 

Position A: The edge lettering reads in upright position when the reverse side (with face value) faces up.
Position B: The edge lettering reads in upright position when the obverse side (with head) faces up.

5 Francs - Léopold II (small head) - Belgium – Numista

(=option 1)

 

Position A - Edge lettering with Obverse on top
Position B - Edge lettering with Reverse on top

2 Dollars - Elizabeth II (HMS Shannon) - Canada – Numista

(=option 2)

 

When the head of the monarch is up, the edge lettering can be up (position A) or upside down (position B).

5 Kronor - Gustaf VI Adolf - Sweden – Numista

(=option 2)

 

Not to mention the many coins where the possibility of position A or B is not mentioned, e.g.

2 Pounds - Elizabeth II (4th portrait; Games in England) - United Kingdom – Numista

2 Euros (1st map) - Portugal – Numista

 

So my suggestion is to make a consensus in this and to make a clear definition of position A and B (for those to whom it values).

 

→ I personally prefer option 1, which is used for older coins, and which is mentioned in sereval classic books and catalogues.

→ I prefer to use words like ‘obverse’ and ‘reverse’.

Not ‘portrait’, ‘head’, ‘face value’, as those can give confusion, like in the example of the Canadian 2 dollar HMS Shannon where face value is on the portrait side. 2 Dollars - Elizabeth II (HMS Shannon) - Canada – Numista

→ Finally I like to compare coins with edge lettering in upright position, and then see which side faces up.

 

So my definition would be:

Position A: The reverse faces up, when the edge lettering reads in upright position.

Position B: The obverse faces up, when the edge lettering reads in upright position.

 

Thank for your replies and your opinions.

Should not even be up for discussion especially when discussing Belgium coins.  SCWC has the definitions that must be used (at least for Belgian coins). Unless you want more than one definition you have to use the SCWC one.

 

Yes,

but you have coins with no portraits and A & B positions. N#4768

 

what about using obverse / reverse as orientation points?

 

 

Position A: Coins with the obverse side downwards, having upright lettering.

 

Position B: Coins with obverse side upwards, having upright lettering.

Good point! I had assumed that since SCWC was only using Position A/B for Belgium coins then the monarch's portrait was always there and on the Obverse. Then I found this one:

I assume they meant the obverse here. So your definition should meet SCWC's intent.  One problem though is that Numista does not always use the same side as SCWC for obverse/reverse and isn't always consistent with itself.  Case in point, recent change to the Iran catalog where this existed:

They all are the same now (lion on obverse) even though SCWC has the lion on the reverse for all of them.

One of the reasons I would prefer the “year side”, but I was taught, that that is not a fixed criterium either!

From PCGS 

 

A 2007-P George Washington Dollar with a Position A will have the coin's edge lettering facing upside-down when the President's portrait faces up.

Thank you for these comments. Very interesting.

In conclusion I can say:

 

Position A: Coins with the obverse side (‘usually’ portrait/head) downwards, having upright lettering.

That is reverse side (‘usually’ denomination/face value) upwards.

 

Position B: Coins with obverse side upwards, having upright lettering.

 

Brings the discussion to ‘which is obverse and which is reverse of a coin’.

Is there consensus in that? Or previous posts concerning this subject?

 

Thanks for any comments

Obverse and Reverse sides are defined in the Guidelines and are followed maybe 60% (?) of the time. If positions A/B are added to a coin page the best way is to define them relative to what that page calls Obverse and Reverse.

The process should be considered as well.  If the edge is applied at the same time as the planchet is struck, there would only be either A or B.  If the edge is applied as a first step to the planchet, and then if the coin is struck at a later stage, you have the randomness of A or B.

 

In my mind that does not seem so important, and yet historically it has been an important factor in pricing and has been a fun point of collecting for some.

 

Now, even some countries have the edge lettering in both directions so there is neither A or B.

 

It used to be cataloged intensely with Belgium coins.  I remember when it was tried without much success to assign A and B to Malaysian listings, and then of course, they made huge efforts to assign A and B to the US Presidential dollar coins.  Ultimately it flopped.  But Belgium is consistent, and likes it, it does not hurt anyone to like it or ignore it.  It may interfere with statistics, but how much so?

Nobody hinders members to put a comment of edge orientation on coins in their collection if they value that. But just because some hyper specialised collectors collect something doesn't mean the catalog has to cater to their every whim (especially when the vast majority doesn't care about the specific minutia of little significance).

 

Not so relevent for edge orientation outside of defining what is a A or B but I can only say that whenever I looked on the internet for Numista videos and people filmed something with data entry on Numista the more detailed and/or complex (variantwise) the year lines were and it took them longer to place something the faster they thought/said ‘fuck it’ and placed the item in a random line, be it their collection or for swapping (reducing the usefulness of extremely granular lines by quite a bit for exchanging).

To put this issue in perspective:

 

In the Numista coin catalog there are 90 coin types that discuss Position A/Position B with the following breakdown:

 

29 Coins - Listed in the year line comments (separate lines for each)

Belgium - 25

IoA - 1

France - 1

Norway - 1

Sweden - 1

 

61 Coins - Listed in Comment section only (saying can be either one)

Canada - 13

Costa Rica - 1

Latvia - 1

Liechtenstein - 1

US - 45

 

The comments for the US coins are most probably a copy and paste to each new type.  I will work on CR's to remove those comments from the US as they add no value to the coin page and I have proof from the US mint that they are indeed random. I'll let others work the other countries.

 

I really don't think it's a major issue for the catalog.

rsirian1

The comments for the US coins are most probably a copy and paste to each new type.  I will work on CR's to remove those comments from the US as they add no value to the coin page and I have proof from the US mint that they are indeed random. I'll let others work the other countries.

 

I really don't think it's a major issue for the cacatalog.

Why not leave a short comment about how to recognise them per coin, as the definition seems to differ per country. Then at least one does not have to search the internet to be able to distinguish A and B. Just like we have comments to describe other minor variants without them needing a separate yearline. I don't care about them but sometime someone does ask for a specific position …

Well…let's decide. Shall we add it to all that don't have it? For the modern 1 dollar US coins about half have it.  Shouldn't we be consistent throughout the catalog.  Maybe better to remove from the few that have it and have a Numista definition to apply?

 

I'm not advocating to remove the ones with year line comments, just the ones where its added for information that essentially says the orientation is random. No value added for that.