Cuba: 5 centavos 2016-17-19 [solved]

Hi,

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces2855.html

The design changed between 2015 (PATRIA Y LIBERTAD) and 2016 (PATRIA Y MUERTE) in the legend.

In numista both of these types are included in km34, but at the same time it's marked KM# n/c. n/c is from the French site, since n/c = NON/CONNU....

I suggest to split the mentioned km#34 into two types, the real km34 and then a NEW TYPE for the coins with the legend PATRIA ET MUERTE from 2016 and forward.

Thanks
Ole

Quote: "Sjoelund"​Hi,
​
​https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces2855.html
​
​The design changed between 2015 (PATRIA Y LIBERTAD) and 2016 (PATRIA Y MUERTE) in the legend.
​
​In numista both of these types are included in km34, but at the same time it's marked KM# n/c. n/c is from the French site, since n/c = NON/CONNU....
​
​I suggest to split the mentioned km#34 into two types, the real km34 and then a NEW TYPE for the coins with the legend PATRIA ET MUERTE from 2016 and forward.
​
​Thanks
​Ole

​Dear Ole:

I was who added the "NO KM" to description (N/C would be not catalogued, on my opinion, that is basically the same), and let me explain why:

First republican Cuban coins, created on 1915 showed "PATRIA Y LIBERTAD" legend, that was a motto from José Martí, main Cuban independence hero. Coins were Cu-Ni, silver and gold (all circulating issues). Said motto was present on 1897 Souvenir and 1898 Peso, the issues minted to finance Revolutionary movement; "PATRIA O MUERTE" comes from the title of a famous Fidel Castro's speech, from March 5th., 1960, for the funerals of the victims of "Le Coubre" ship explosion.

Later, when they modified coins, in most cases were only small changes, like metal, or change of minthouse.

On 1962 all silver and gold coins were demonetized, but Cu-Ni coins still are valid and circulating.

On 1963 1 cent coin changed to aluminum (KM# 33), with nearly the same design of 1915 issues, with a total of 3 variants:
There are 2 obverses: older has longer branches on sides of coat of arms, and strips on left side of coat are thin, while newer has shorter branches, and strips on coat are much thicker.
Also there are 2 reverses: older showing "PATRIA Y LIBERTAD"and newer "PATRIA O MUERTE".
Variants are:
KM# 33.1 older obverse and reverse, from 1963 to 1982,
KM# 33.2 older obverse and new reverse, from 1983 to 1998, and
KM# 33.3 new obverse and reverse, from 2001 to date.

2 cents coins were minted on 1915 and 1916, and then restarted again on 1983, when changed to aluminum (KM# 104.1 & KM# 104.2) This issue shows "PATRIA O MUERTE".

10 Cents were silver, only used till 1949, not minted anymore.

20 Cents were silver till 1949, then 1962 & 1968 CU-NI, already with "PATRIA O MUERTE", and from 1969, aluminum, with similar design to others.

Now, about 5 cents, from 1915 to 1961, of Cu-NI, and from 1963 to date aluminum, as KM# 34.

From 1963 to 1972, coins were minted at Kremnica, and after nearly 30 years, they started minting at Havana,
dies were not the same, so they used the newer coat of arms design, with shorter wreaths and less lines on stripes, but kept the "PATRIA Y LIBERTAD" legend, I was not able to find why. Then from 2015 to 2016, they changed the legend.

As Krause kept same main number of coin for 1 cent, even on being changed the legend, I understand they would do the same for 5 cents, most possible is they re number as KM# 34.1 for old legend, and KM# 34.2 for newer, same as they did on 1 cent KM# 33.1 & KM# 33.2.

I don't have the very last catalog of Krause, but I don't think they already have registered 2016 and later coins, cause they usually are back several years for non US and European coins., but of course Krause is who set the numbers, and they also decide when to assign a new number to a different coin. So far, I think the best is to have them listed in same page, and I have put "NO KM" just to show is not a mistake no have put the KM#.

Hope you understand my point, and agree, but if you still have other opinion, I will be more than happy to know it, maybe you convince me...

Best regards, and thank you for taking care of this matter.
Daniel,
Uruguay.

Hi,

I do understand your point, BUT from 2016 SCWC do NOT give a KM# for the 5 centavos coins! So as such NO/KM is right. On the other hand the design changed drastically, so the coins from 2016 and onwards can NOT stay under the the KM# they are now, km#34. As you certanly know, SCWC is out of order for the time being, but that doesn't change anything, from 2016 those coins are different!!!!

Those coins need to have a separate entry with NO km# from 2016, they are NOT the same!

Ole

Hello again:

I'm pretty sure Krause did not give a KM# for 2016 and later issues; I have 12th. edition (2018), where last coins listed for Cuba are dated 2012, at that pace, assuming they keep the same lapse to process new coins, is difficult 2016 coins be listed less than 2 or 3 years in future.

I agree coins are enough different to be a new coin, but seems is not the rule Krause used before.

Please check the pictures:


KM# 33.1 and KM# 33.3


KM# 34("KM# 34.1") and "KM# 34.2"

First of all, I agree change of the legend is enough to make it a new coin, but this is not about what you or me think, is about what Krause considers as different coins vs variants.

Let´s think of it.

You say design changed drastically. I agree it noticeably changed, not sure if call it drastic, since only 2 words changed. Rest of elements have slight differences, that usually would make them a variant.

Changes on reverse from KM# 33.1 to KM# 33.3 are basically the same changes we find from KM# 34 to 5 cents 2016-date. Legend change the same, typography change the same, and basic layout is the same. Can you show me what changed on KM# 34 different to what changed from KM# 33.1 to KM# 33.3? You wrote: "Those coins need to have a separate entry with NO km# from 2016, they are NOT the same!". Based on this, we should also split KM# 33.

Now, if Krause considers KM# 33.1 and KM# 33.3 are variants of the same coin, I assume will make the same when they reach to year 2016 of KM# 34. But if we accept 1 cent coins are the same coin, there is not an argument to think different about 5 cent coins (keeping in mind you and I, both think should be different coins. In fact, they have different slots in my personal collection).

Fun fact: many catalog writers at Latin America solved it assigning different number to each year of the coin, variants are assigned only to same year coins, while the difference is just minimal details.

Conclusion: I agree with you that should be considered different coins, not just variants, and same should be done on 1 cent coins, but so far, catalog follows the classification of Krause, I can't go against it, in my country there is a saying "You can't be more royalist than the king".

Hi,

Krause does NOT really exist anymore

https://en.numista.com/forum/topic80467.html

so you'll not see many new km# in the future!

Ole

That was what I heard, but I found this announce a few days ago:
2020 Standard Catalog of World Coins 2001-Date (Inglés) Fourteenth Edición
2020 Standard Catalog of World Coins 1901-2000
And loads more, so maybe they could have a comeback.

Quote: "adanieluy"​That was what I heard, but I found this announce a few days ago:
​2020 Standard Catalog of World Coins 2001-Date (Inglés) Fourteenth Edición
​2020 Standard Catalog of World Coins 1901-2000
​And loads more, so maybe they could have a comeback.

​We can hope for that, but will they have staff enough? I am/was a contributor to the catalogs, but since a lot of time, they don't keep in contact with the contributors and without contributors I think it's very difficult to keep the catalogs in working order.

Ole

This is an old thread, but... I have some comments.

Firstly: the legend change does seem rather major to me, so I would support giving this its own page (not just the 5 Centavos pieces this thread is about, but also the 1 Centavos piece that was mentioned).

With that being said:

Quote: "adanieluy"First of all, I agree change of the legend is enough to make it a new coin, but this is not about what you or me think, is about what Krause considers as different coins vs variants.

This is not correct. Krause is just one catalogue, and we do not have to follow it. While it is usually a decent catalogue in respect to modern coins, there are definitely some errors within it, and there are definitely times when Krause's standards do not match Numista's standards. In those situations, rather than following Krause, it would be best if we tried to correct them.

Quote: "adanieluy"Conclusion: I agree with you that should be considered different coins, not just variants, and same should be done on 1 cent coins, but so far, catalog follows the classification of Krause, I can't go against it, in my country there is a saying "You can't be more royalist than the king".

I'd argue that Krause is not a king... just one of many resources.

You say you agree that these should be different types, as does everyone else in this thread (only two others, but that is still everyone). So... I think we should split them, irregardless of what Krause may say. If the pages are created, I can move the collections and delete the duplicate year-lines.

Yes, let's please implement this. Then I can put the new 5 centavos on my wants list, something that's currently not possible without being swamped by listings of the earlier type.

Quote: "Sulfur"​This is an old thread, but... I have some comments.
​
​Firstly: the legend change does seem rather major to me, so I would support giving this its own page (not just the 5 Centavos pieces this thread is about, but also the 1 Centavos piece that was mentioned).
​
​With that being said:
​

Quote: "adanieluy"First of all, I agree change of the legend is enough to make it a new coin, but this is not about what you or me think, is about what Krause considers as different coins vs variants.

​This is not correct. Krause is just one catalogue, and we do not have to follow it. While it is usually a decent catalogue in respect to modern coins, there are definitely some errors within it, and there are definitely times when Krause's standards do not match Numista's standards. In those situations, rather than following Krause, it would be best if we tried to correct them.
​

Quote: "adanieluy"Conclusion: I agree with you that should be considered different coins, not just variants, and same should be done on 1 cent coins, but so far, catalog follows the classification of Krause, I can't go against it, in my country there is a saying "You can't be more royalist than the king".

​I'd argue that Krause is not a king... just one of many resources.
​
​You say you agree that these should be different types, as does everyone else in this thread (only two others, but that is still everyone). So... I think we should split them, irregardless of what Krause may say. If the pages are created, I can move the collections and delete the duplicate year-lines.

​You have a good point Sulfur, and we could have a long arguing about how to split or group coins. Some catalogs tend to group simmilar coins under a same major classification, as Krause and Yeoman, (15.1, 15.2, 15a, etc.), but others give different numbers even for years, and they understand as variants only very subtle differences within the same year, like Janson, Argentina; Silvera, Uruguay.

On the other hand, in fact, Krause generally lists separately variants, with summary descriptions of technical data and description of coin sides, and was we (Numista) who tend to group variants in the same page, usually noting the variants in the year lines' comments (only Sjoelund make graphics to describe and explain the variations found, for what I thank).

I agree that we must split some pages, for a better classification of coins/banknotes, so I will work on it in the next days, maybe I ask for split a few pages very soon.

NB: When I mentioned the saying in my country, just wrote it in the way is said, I don't consider Krause the king, but nly the most extensive catalog we have so far. Is not a secret I always liked more to refer to local catalogues for finest details, and use Krause just as a main guide. I have detected dozens of mistakes on Krause catalogs, and a few of them on local catalogues, and also on Numista, which I have corrected or submitted to the corresponding referee.

Perfection is nearly impossible, but working as group, also is nearly reachable.

I also prefer local catalogues--they are more specialized, which would contain more accurate details.

I have noticed that many local catalogues give individual years their own numbers (I imagine it is because they deal with a specific area, so they have the room to do that, where as Krause deals with everything, so splitting by year would take up too much space). While Krause has a much closer format to Numista than those local catalogues, our two formats are not always completely compatible. The way Krause decided to group these two types is not necessarily wrong by their standards, for example, but it is just not compatible with ours.

Page splitting typically requires collection moving and year deleting, so whenever you make some splits, I will try to be ready.

Great, I will work on splitting those 2 coins (5 and 1 cents), Minor problem I see is the "new" 5 cents coin will not have a KM#, so catalog order will be affected if ordered by ref#., while 1 cent coin will keep same order as KM# are present.

I have in mind to split a Bolivian coin too, where reverse text shows significant changes, but being an old coin, will discuss it in Forum before doing (or not) it.

I still think Numista should have their own catalog #, but we would need to discuss it, to decide structure and technical details to split or merge coins (metals, size, weight, text, design, etc., etc.). I don't think will be something for a very near future. We should examine how other catalogues determine order/assignation of codes, and decide what would be the most accurate and convenient for us.

You could mark it as: KM#34 var. (meaning variety of KM#34). I see that done fairly often by auction houses, when coins are missing numbers (typically with older coins, but I think it would still be valid here). That way, this page will come right after KM#34 while only being marked as a variety of that number.

And I definitely think Numista would benefit from having its own numbers.

Quote: "Sulfur"​And I definitely think Numista would benefit from having its own numbers.

​I agree, if it's done intelligently.

New page is ready.

Please move owners of years 2016, 2017 and 2019 from 5 Centavos Patria y Libertad to 5 Centavos Patria o Muerte, and then delete those years from the first one.

Thank you.

The collections have been moved and the duplicate year-lines deleted.

Many thanks for splitting off the new type of 5 centavos so I can add it to my wants list. Are we going to split the 1 centavo (https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1017.html) according to the legend also?

Quote: "ceh2019"​Many thanks for splitting off the new type of 5 centavos so I can add it to my wants list. Are we going to split the 1 centavo (https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1017.html) according to the legend also?

​Yes, I will work on it on the weekend.

Split of 1 Centavo page is done.

Please move owners of years 1963 to 1982 from 1 Centavo Patria y Libertad to 1 Centavo Patria o Muerte, and then delete the moved years from first page.

I decided to make the new page the older coins just cause of the amount of years to move; I think there is no difference which is the newer/older part.

The collections of the 1 Centavo piece have been moved and the extra year-lines deleted. Thank you.