My point is that if the OP sees something on a coin and suggests they see a possible “subtype” or variant, it is incumbent upon the OP to point out and highlight exactly what they see to justify debate or opinions about the merits of addition or inclusion to the Numista catalog. Make your own case. This would have to been done for CR regardless. I see something that is easy to see is simply not enough to spend time on.
Now I see myriad differences. Shall we point every single one out? Near and far. Thick and thin. Dot vs diamonds. Perhaps we can just attribute the second type as a entirely different die. Perhaps even a different engraver. Perhaps the same engraver on a new die. The possibilities are endless. They resemble each other but clearly are entirely different and not the coins the OP showed. So now what?
According to me, inscription width of the 2 subtypes could lead to a solution…
Exactly why you should have highlighted what you claimed was easy for you to see. Any wonder why referees are overwhelmed?
I don't know if I understand correctly what you are saying… but I documented with 2 photos the 2 coins in my first post … and I tried to explain with “my” English…
One thing we know for certain is that you do not have a KM#32.2 dated 1376 (1956). As far as the size difference in the denomination inscriptions between KM# 32.1 and KM# 32.2, the width is about 76%. Your coins with your measurements the width is about 91%. Maybe it's slightly smaller but not nearly the difference Krause is reporting to create a different sub-type. Also, the KM# 32.2 coin in my picture is a proof while the KM# 32.1 is a business strike which accounts for some of the other differences noted between them but does not affect the size difference of the denomination inscriptions.
I understand by your opinions till now you deny this possibility just because Krause doesn't report it.
No, you understand wrong. You started this post by stating you had a Krause small inscription dated 1956. I merely pointed out that what you had did not fall under the Krause numbering system (32.1 - large, 32.2 - small). I think you now agree with this. Could Krause have missed this 1956 variation or chose to ignore it for being too minor a difference? Yes, that's quite possible.
You also started this post with, “Any opinion is welcome.” It sounds like you've changed your mind.
I changed my mind because according to your documentation my coin with smaller inscription is not 32.2 Krause reports.
In my first post I stated that my two 1956 coins have different size inscription… also asked “new different subtype?” because it could also be 32.3.
About it can be considered too minor a difference, I couldn't understand it when we have the Colombian coin I mentioned with large, medium and small date… same situations must have the same solutions according to me.
Sjoelund and I have been looking closer at this. Here is another set of coins showing the large and small (Proof only) inscriptions with the same size difference (~75%):
We then looked at a couple of 1956 coins which should both be the large inscription type. We found this:
Both of these are the large inscription type but one is larger than the other. Note that the sizes of the inscriptions are essentially identical to the OP's coins. So, the OP is right, there are different inscription sizes for the 1956 coins, but none can be considered the small size listed as KM# 32.2.
Sjoelund and I have been looking closer at this. Here is another set of coins showing the large and small (Proof only) inscriptions with the same size difference (~75%):
We then looked at a couple of 1956 coins which should both be the large inscription type. We found this:
Both of these are the large inscription type but one is larger than the other. Note that the sizes of the inscriptions are essentially identical to the OP's coins. So, the OP is right, there are different inscription sizes for the 1956 coins, but none can be considered the small size listed as KM# 32.2.
Perfect documentations of what I was trying to say with “my” English! 😅
Here two documentations based on the Sudan questions.
1st the 1956-AH1376 coins, the OP will be happy, since there is a “small” difference in the size of the denominations
2nd is the one registered in our source Numista
The measurements were made by rsirian1 with the help of Acrobat, I didn't know, one could do that, and when I tried, I didn't figure out how. Tomorrow I'll look at a step-by-step document set up by rsirian1 to learn how. Fantastic results, really. AND the best is you don't need to use your caliper on the surface of the coin, so no scratches and I think it's just as precise.
