USA: 1/2 cent 1795, km14, edges, no pole versus pole, punctuated

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces55103.html

Now to the 1795 coins



The year lines are OK.

Comments please?

Cita: "Sjoelund"​https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces55103.html
​
​Now to the 1795 coins
​
​
​
​The year lines are OK.
​
​Comments please?

​A couple of minor things:

1. Change "With no pole" to "No pole"
2. Change "punctuated" to "punctuated date"

These changes will make them match the comments on the year lines.

OK, like that?

Yes but change to "punctuated date" in the title also.

Cita: "rsirian1"​Yes but change to "punctuated date" in the title also.

​Done,


I'll only make the CR when the 1704 coin has been approved, so not before tomorrow for me (10 hours from now), so people can still give their opinions.

Of course it's a bit nitpicking and I can easily live with your documentation as it is now, but just to be a bit more consistent I would go for: Pole/No pole or With pole/Without pole, now you've made a mix.

Cita: "Essor Prof"​Of course it's a bit nitpicking and I can easily live with your documentation as it is now, but just to be a bit more consistent I would go for: Pole/No pole or With pole/Without pole, now you've made a mix.

​The year line comments and the terminology in the graphics should be the same, whichever ones are used. The "with pole" / "no pole" is what's used in the Red Book. That's why they're used on the year lines.

It's the order you're not happy with, since the wordings are like in the Red Book? I've changed the order (edges before poles!).



OK to publish now?

Cita: "Sjoelund"​It's the order you're not happy with, since the wordings are like in the Red Book? I've changed the order (edges before poles!).
​
​
​OK to publish now?
​
​

​It's not the order but the terminology. With/Without go together, Pole/No Pole go together. Right now it's mixed With/No which matches The Red Book. SCWC uses Pole/No Pole (as you did too in the title of this post). As long as the same terminology is used in the year lines (currently With/No) it doesn't matter to me which is used.

The documentation corresponds to the year lines as in numista and the Red Book, so it's OK, or do you want SCWC expressions (then we have to modify the year lines)? We can't do both!

My vote is to stick with The Red Book With Pole / No Pole since we're using the mintage numbers from there rather than those in SCWC. So, I'm saying it's OK.