so the SCWC is clearly wrong..... the referee has to decide,
1. if we stick with km266.2 for the small dates or
2. if we give the coins just km266 and let the km266.1 and 266.2 be the same or
3. if we renumber into UM#, as suggested?
To differ the types we should first look on the first "9" in the dates!
The years 1965 - 1968 are similar but the large dates 1969 and 1970 "9" differ a lot.
This entitle to change the two last years into a complete new catalog number.
the 1969 "small year" is different from the other date styles, so it is a different type.
I support Ole´s suggestion to change this Type into 4 different sub-numbers (266.1-4)
Quote: "Radealex"Hello,
I think Ole is correct with his suggestion,
To differ the types we should first look on the first "9" in the dates!
The years 1965 - 1968 are similar but the large dates 1969 and 1970 "9" differ a lot.
This entitle to change the two last years into a complete new catalog number.
the 1969 "small year" is different from the other date styles, so it is a different type.
I support Ole´s suggestion to change this Type into 4 different sub-numbers (266.1-4)
Alex.
We can NOT change the KM#, but we could ask to have the additional "UM#" added as a reference? It's for Xavier to decide, since up to now Numista hasn't made any decision on an own numbering system....
I think Ole and Radealex overlooked something very important: the different subnumbers have nothing to do with the date (small date/large date) but only with the occurrence/absence of the dashes before and after the obverse legend.
Nevertheless, I also think Krause is wrong, but for another reason. Only the 1965 has no dashes, so only the 1965 should have been KM# 266.1, all the other dates should have been KM# 266.2
And of course, the description in Numista's comment sector is also completely wrong:
"KM#266.1 - Dashes on Obverse legend.
KM#266.2 - Dashes on date.":
Concerning the description for KM#266.1: The description should have been "No dashes on obverse legend. The current description implies for the 1966-1970 coins, not for the 1965 coins, but those 1966-1970 coins shouldn't have been KM#266.1 in the first place.
Concerning the description for KM#266.2: There isn't any date with dashes!
I don't know how to fix the problem. We can easily fix problems in Krause like wrong weight or diameter or picture or description etc. but only Krause can assign KM# numbers, so even if they're wrong we can't fix that.
Quote: "Essor Prof"I don't know how to fix the problem. We can easily fix problems in Krause like wrong weight or diameter or picture or description etc. but only Krause can assign KM# numbers, so even if they're wrong we can't fix that.
If the 2 KM numbers are only related to the occurrence/absence of the dashes before and after the obverse legend then there's no need to have additional KM numbers. We just need to change the year line comments to call out the correct KM numbers (change 1967-1970 to KM# 266.2) and maybe add something in the comments section about not matching SCWC. The current graphic would need to be reworked with the NU#'s removed since they don't and probably never will exist.
With corresponding changes of the year lines and change Comments from: KM#266.1 - Dashes on Obverse legend.
KM#266.2 - Dashes on date.
to: KM#266.1 - No dashes on Obverse legend.
KM#266.2 - Dashes on Obverse legend.
Quote: "rsirian1"If the 2 KM numbers are only related to the occurrence/absence of the dashes before and after the obverse legend then there's no need to have additional KM numbers.
It can't be about the shape of the dates because both subnumbers have the small date.
Quote: "rsirian1"We just need to change the year line comments to call out the correct KM numbers (change 1967-1970 to KM# 266.2) and maybe add something in the comments section about not matching SCWC. The current graphic would need to be reworked with the NU#'s removed since they don't and probably never will exist.
But then we're messing with the KM# numbers, even only with subnumbers, but still, and that's something I really want to avoid, even when this theoretically would be an ideal solution.
Quote: "rsirian1"If the 2 KM numbers are only related to the occurrence/absence of the dashes before and after the obverse legend then there's no need to have additional KM numbers.
It can't be about the shape of the dates because both subnumbers have the small date.
Quote: "rsirian1"We just need to change the year line comments to call out the correct KM numbers (change 1967-1970 to KM# 266.2) and maybe add something in the comments section about not matching SCWC. The current graphic would need to be reworked with the NU#'s removed since they don't and probably never will exist.
But then we're messing with the KM# numbers, even only with subnumbers, but still, and that's something I really want to avoid, even when this theoretically would be an ideal solution.
I was already convinced that the subnumbers had nothing to do with the dates. I agree with your comment about messing with the KM# but I also think that to leave it as is creates confusion for anyone who has this coin. Besides we've already messed with the SCWC by labeling the 1965 as "large date" while Krause says it's a "small date" and labeling the 1969 as "small and large dates" while Krause says it's only "large date". Perhaps a compromise solution is to leave the KM#'s as they are and add a text comment in the Comments section explaining how SCWC mislabeled the 1967-1970 coins as 266.1 relative to their definition of .1 vs. .2.
and it's getting worse, look at this, if we go by the diamonds (dashes?), then it makes absolutely no sense at all. ONLY the 1965 has no dashes!
So only the 1965 should be km266.1 and ALL the others km266.2? There is no way to make the given km# into a logical system, which as such is no problem for most of coins. We only have a problem with the 1969, since it needs to have two year lines, one for small and one for large date. That's what I suggest to do, just add a 1969 year line. Is my conclusion correct, or is there a loop-hole some where?
Quote: "rsirian1"Besides we've already messed with the SCWC by labeling the 1965 as "large date" while Krause says it's a "small date" and labeling the 1969 as "small and large dates" while Krause says it's only "large date".
I have no problem with messing with SCWC as such, because we all know there are a lot of mistakes in it so we should correct whatever is possible. I only have a problem with messing with the KM# reference numbers because that's exactly the strength of Krause, a certain KM# number is for everybody the same, wherever you are in the world. So although it would be the perfect solution we can't change the reference number for two reasons:
- Only Krause can assign a KM# number to a coin.
- Even if we would change the KM# number, for the rest of the world it still would be the original KM# number.
I've written to NumisMaster and hope they read this discussion and change the KM# numbers, that would be absolutely perfect. Hope is little but you never know.
Quote: "Sjoelund"and it's getting worse, look at this, if we go by the diamonds (dashes?), then it makes absolutely no sense at all. ONLY the 1965 has no dashes!
Like I've said, is it about the dashes/diamonds or is it about the shape of the dates, either way Krause is wrong. Is it about the dashes/diamonds (which still makes the most sense to me), 1967-1970 should move to KM# 266.2, is it about the shape of the dates, 1965 should move to KM# 266.2. I hope we get an answer from NumisMaster.
Quote: "sjoelund"We only have a problem with the 1969, since it needs to have two year lines, one for small and one for large date. That's what I suggest to do, just add a 1969 year line. Is my conclusion correct, or is there a loop-hole some where?
Fully agreed, we need a second year line for the extra 1969.
I believe that Krause is so erroneous with this entry that we should forgo the KM numbers in the yearlies entirely. Instead, we should simply note the differences in the year lines and explain the error in the Krause numbers with Sjoelund's documentation in the comments.
Master Coin Referee
Coin referee for CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN, and SLV.
Revisor principal de monedas
Revisor de Numista para monedas de CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN y SLV.
I am now seeing a problem in adding large and small dates for the 1969 year line. Currently, it is listed as "1969 large and small dates; see comments." I cannot amend the original year line as it lists owners of both large and small dates.
The only solutions I can think of is either:
message all ~350 owners of this coin and sort them into large and small dates. This is infeasible as this is time intensive and many users will simply not respond.
- or -
leave it as is and keep the note to see comments.
I for one would vote for the later, but I am willing to hear everyone's input.
Thank you all for your time,
Theodore
Master Coin Referee
Coin referee for CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN, and SLV.
Revisor principal de monedas
Revisor de Numista para monedas de CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN y SLV.
