The 4 diffrenet sub types, which are not reflected in the year lines:
The year lines as of today, what to change and how it'll look after the change
I have suggested to take to delete the mint marks from their proper place into the year line texts to avoid having the sort order disturbed, but that can certainly be discussed. In my opinion there was a line too many, as well.
Sorry but try as I might I have no idea what “Arms within RING” and “Arms outside Ring” mean.
I'm not too happy with it either, but you see the oval “ring”. The top of the shield below it can either go into the oval or just touch it. The fifth variant is the 220.4, where the initials AP can either be there or not, so here is the graphics again
Well that just confused me more. Do you mean the location of point of the shield? “Arms” to me just doesn't make sense.
Well, yes, that's it, but difficult to express in 20 characters!
I think I see it now. By “arms” you meant “coat of arms.” I was stuck on arms as in human arms. If you had used "shield" instead it would have made perfect sense to me.
I'm rethinking it all, since it's rather more complicated than just what I have shown, for the 220.4 (two variants) and the 220.5 (1 variant) I will have to look at the year side of the coins, since 220.4 involves flat topped 4s and the 220.5 narrow 4s, which I never got from, I can't remember, whom…. many years ago!
Actually the arms touching or not are redundant with the # of palm leaves, so I'll let that fall in the next version, there is another significant redundant (as well( difference between the trees to the right of the lama, dense on 200.1/2/3 and less so on 220.4/5.
Hi, back again with a new version! I'm still thinking how to set the yearlines according to this and I'm still not quite sure how the 220.1 is looking (which is not included in 1942 anyway)!
No arms, no shields, no ovals, all simple now, isn't it?
It looks pinned down for the 4 different km# used 1942, I'm satisfied with it like this, and I even know what the difference is with 220.1, which has 5 leaves and a simple tree, but that's for the year lines, which I'll attack tomorrow.
I have given up to concentrate on the 1942 coins and have started on all the sub-types of the km220.x ½ sol from 1935 to 1965.
Here is the documentation
and here the year line changes going with that
I have one question about all the year lines after 1945, if I should let them with the km# or take them out and just let the text on the 1945 year line as shown?
I would like your opinion on this, please, before I make the CR.
My opinion as well. Let's see, if others have some good arguments against it.
I just added another comment on my last post at the same time you replied. Where are the weights documented?
They are not, since only given for 220.4 (7.32) and 220.5(7.40) (since that's how it was taken over from SCWC in the early days, the other 3 km# don't have any weights, so seeing the difference 0.08g I simply concluded, that no weight was needed! The 7.3 given for the whole series, might be just as good!
The average of my 19 220.x coins is 7,34578947g!
So taking my grades into consideration, I would say we could up the standard weight to 7.40 and probably be better than the 7.3 given today
I was just looking at the current page where on the year lines were 7.32g or 7.6g. I assumed there was a (good) reason somebody decided to show the different weights. If that's not the case then by all means get rid of them but maybe add something in the comment section like, “SCWC documents KM# 220.4 as weighing 7.32 g and KM# 220.5 as weighing 7.40 g.”
so we now we have proof, that the theoretical weight was 7.5 grams! We also know the alloy Cu79 Ni1 Zn20. We don't know, if this is true for the other types as well, but I tend to think that it's better to use this for all the types until more documentation comes to light?
EDIT taken from Pauls's mail to me: ..but we do not know what the U.S. mints and Lima mints says about the pieces they made in terms of material… I expect there is a U.S. mint document/book… The 1963 book “United States Mints, by Charles Altz and E. H. Barton” just refers to those Half Sol coins as “Brass”… but perhaps there is a mint document.
.but we do not know what the U.S. mints and Lima mints says about the pieces they made in terms of material… I expect there is a U.S. mint document/book… The 1963 book “United States Mints, by Charles Altz and E. H. Barton” just refers to those Half Sol coins as “Brass”… but perhaps there is a mint document.
There is. Domestic and Foreign Coins Manufactured by Mints of the United States 1793-1980 by the US Bureau of the Mint.
Thanks rsirian1, so the weight is now fixed as 7.50…. The alloy in the main I'll ask for 70/30 and not 70/1/29 and the diameter is 27.00, which corresponds to what I have in my collection.
I don't know, if we'll find anything from the Lima mint?
This will be the elements entering the CR based on all our findings (still open the more than 5 references and the data from the Lima mint about the weight for the km220.4 and km220.5 minted in Peru.
First the graphic for the types existing from 1935 to 1965:
Done, but I have another question, should we believe KM and take the 7.4 grs for the 220.4 and 220.5? The 7.32 came from my days as a contributor to SCWC, where I delivered all MY measurements to KM and where they had no weight, they used mine….. hence the 7.32! I would say 7.4 for the two!
In the mean time the 1942 long top 2 has been documented as well
Maybe I should also set up the 1942 with the different 4's?
You fixed the 79-1-19 but reverted back to 80-20 from the correct 70-30.
I would add to the .4 and .5 “7.32g per SCWC” and “7.4g per SCWC”. Otherwise eventually someone will notice it doesn't match SCWC and submit a CR to “fix” it.
There's already comments about the 4's. Not sure it's needed in the graphic though. The graphic as it is now is sufficient to distinguish the 5 types. Adding the 4's just clutters it up.
You fixed the 79-1-19 but reverted back to 80-20 from the correct 70-30.
I would add to the .4 and .5 “7.32g per SCWC” and “7.4g per SCWC”. Otherwise eventually someone will notice it doesn't match SCWC and submit a CR to “fix” it.
There's already comments about the 4's. Not sure it's needed in the graphic though. The graphic as it is now is sufficient to distinguish the 5 types. Adding the 4's just clutters it up.
There is no real 7.32, since it came from my 1941 km220.4 vf coin….. the average of my km220.4 and 220.5 coins (16 coins with an average grade of VF) is 7.33 g! The highest grade, one AU is 7.42 g, so even 7.5 could be considered the theoretical weight for those two KM#? For the moment I've taken the SCWC value of 7.4 for both and the alloy as just brass!
I understood where the weights came from. I was just trying to prevent somebody in the future without knowledge of the history of the weights from trying to “fix” the Numista page with the SCWC weights. What you have is good.
I have changed the features part. Alloy Brass, since the details of each km# are given in the comments section.
The S for the San Francisco mint is there again, since it is on the coin, I think rsirian1 is right to say, it should appear in the mint mark column, although the sort will change a bit because of that, but ni modo.
If no more comments today, I'll issue the CR tomorrow!
Agree with composition change and of course the S in the mint mark column. I doubt if the number of references will be increased by tomorrow so you'll probably have to circle back to that change in the future, assuming you remember 😉.
We (Jasanche and I) have received the modification request for this page, and we are discussing how to process it. Please be patient, as this is a very complex issue (same as it took nearly 2 weeks to you to dicuss details), and on my side I am busy with organization of the annual meeting at our numismatic association that will be held on Oct. 15-16, but will find time for this.
Just 10 options: you understand binary, or you don't.
Catalog Referee Coins, Banknotes & Exonumia: Uruguay, Cuba, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Panama, Ecuador, Zamunda, Parva Domus and more.
We (Jasanche and I) have received the modification request for this page, and we are discussing how to process it. Please be patient, as this is a very complex issue (same as it took nearly 2 weeks to you to dicuss details), and on my side I am busy with organization of the annual meeting at our numismatic association that will be held on Oct. 15-16, but will find time for this.
For me no problem to wait, so take the needed time.
Good afternoon, Sjoelund and everyone on this forum.
First and foremost, Adanieluy and I would like to thank you for an excellent workup on the 1/2 Sol de Oro. Your diligence is remarkable and it is, to me, an example of what makes Numista such an awesome place.
After reading the forum interactions and reviewing the modification requests, we feel this is the best course of action:
• The KM reference number will remain as 220 for now. If the number of reference numbers is ever increased to include all the five KM numbers for this coin, we will revisit this decision.
• The composition, weight and thickness modification requests will be approved.
• The comments modification request will approved.
• The yearline comment modifications will be approved to leave on most instances only the KM and Mint (i.e. taking off the variety descriptions and weight).
• The mintmark field will remain as it is. Although this throws the KM order out of whack, having the mintmark field populated when there is a mintmark is the norm. We believe it would defeat the purpose of having such field if we were to erase the information.
Before proceeding with the modification requests, we like to hear what your opinion is as to the above decisions.
I have one comment/concern about your resolution. Specifically this comment,
• The mintmark field will remain as it is. Although this throws the KM order out of whack, having the mintmark field populated when there is a mintmark is the norm. We believe it would defeat the purpose of having such field if we were to erase the information.
If I understand correctly your plan is to leave the designers initials in the mint mark field. Designer initials are not mint marks. I know of no other coin in the catalog where the designers initials are treated as a mint mark. The correct place for the initials is in the Lettering field (assuming they are actually on the coin in the picture). In a case like this where they are not on every variety then they should be indicated on the year line comments as Ole proposes. The only variety of this coin that has a mint mark is the 1942 and 1943 minted at San Fransisco that has a S mint mark on the coin.
I have one comment/concern about your resolution. Specifically this comment,
• The mintmark field will remain as it is. Although this throws the KM order out of whack, having the mintmark field populated when there is a mintmark is the norm. We believe it would defeat the purpose of having such field if we were to erase the information.
If I understand correctly your plan is to leave the designers initials in the mint mark field. Designer initials are not mint marks. I know of no other coin in the catalog where the designers initials are treated as a mint mark. The correct place for the initials is in the Lettering field (assuming they are actually on the coin in the picture). In a case like this where they are not on every variety then they should be indicated on the year line comments as Ole proposes. The only variety of this coin that has a mint mark is the 1942 and 1943 minted at San Fransisco that has a S mint mark on the coin.
Good morning, Sir,
I stand corrected. As you noted, the S mint mark will remain while the designer initials will be moved to the comments.
