I can not find a reason why we have an extra 1999 only listing of a french 10 euro dated 1999. It looks to be of the same type as the first map type. It is also illustrated by a severely damaged coin. Should this listing be removed or am I overlooking something?
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
That is not typical damage. I believe the term is waffling. If I recall correctly, that is a way for a country to demonetize a coin (put it through something similar to a waffle maker and force a deformety).
While the waffled piece is demonetized and the regular piece is not, I do not believe that is good reason to split a page on Numista. For example, some Maundy issues of the United Kingdom (non-demonetized) are on the same pages as the regular issues (demonetized). The designs are identical, so they are on the same page.
The waffling could be seen as a reason to split the page, but... I cannot think of any Numista examples of that.
So now we must look further into this--the reason why some pieces were demonetized and others were not. The page was created in French, and there are certainly more details on that side.
From my understanding, the difference is on the edge of a coin: the singular 1999 page is the very first type, struck with fine serrating, whereas the other type came afterwards, struck with coarse serrating.
Different edge types are allowed to have their own pages. I am thinking of Hong Kong, where those with security edges and those with smooth edges are split. But on these examples, both edges are serrated, just to different degrees. So... I am not sure what to do here.
I think considering the history behind it, it would deserve a new page.
Coins that were recalled and deformed, then changed (in this case the edge only), so they are essentially non-circulating type, different (in this case very slightly) from the normal coin
How does a coin that has been deliberately obliterated deserve it's own page? It seems to me that if Numista is not going to allow legitimate mint errors in our online catalog, then why would we have a page for a delegitimized coin. Just curious...plus this idea of waffling, or deliberate damage of a coin, is not unique to this piece of metal. It has literally been done to thousands of different designs from countries around the world. Coins that were waffled were damaged in some way...should we have listings for parking lot coins?
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
The point is that, but this info is missing on the english page!, the first coin was minted with a different edge (fine reeding) as production had started before the final agreement on coin specifications had been made. The whole production was then destroyed (waffled) but some were recovered before remelting.
The English page clearly needs an update with all this extra info. If nobody else does it, I'll give it a go one of these days. I'm quite sure this coin with different reeding deserves its own page.
Just call me Bram
No new swaps for the moment, still too many half-ongoing swaps to clean up!
Not a line that says fine reeding and another line that says larger reeding? I understand though. So in a way this could be considered a pattern for the purpose of pages.
I only discovered this as I tried to assist a confused member of the public on a facebook page. I can pass on additional info to him.
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
Not a line that says fine reeding and another line that says larger reeding? I understand though. So in a way this could be considered a pattern for the purpose of pages.
I only discovered this as I tried to assist a confused member of the public on a facebook page. I can pass on additional info to him.
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
Status changed to Started(Sulfur, 8 Jan 2020, 18:22)
