I consider the year 2009 is a key date for the 5-Piso Philippine coin — this is supposedly the first and only year when all four reverse die types are present (we shall refer to these die type as R1 to R4, for brevity). As the existing numista classification stands, the points of distinction are as follows:
- R1 - narrow date; long sun rays
- R2 - wide, fine date; long sun rays
- R3 - wide, bold date; long sun rays
- R4 - narrow date; short sun rays
For easy reference, the 5-Piso page is here: N#1680
Of course, we believe that just because almost all collectors don’t have the variant doesn’t mean that the variant doesn’t exist. However, I’ve searched high and low for the 2009 R3, even making a public offer to buy it (a couple of times) from anyone who has it, but no luck. Other collectors (including the contributor to the existing photo guide in numista) share the sentiment that there is no 2009 R3 (as it is currently being characterized — wide, bold date; long sun rays). In other words, unless anyone can show a true R3 based on the current points of identification, we should proceed to assume that the current 2009 R3 does not exist. This switch is also supported by the fact that the existing R3 has a thicker inner circle; the cogwheels also appear to be deeper. All hallmarks of R4.
If the current R3 2009 is non-existent, there is a need to revamp the die type numbers. The reason is simple: the current R4 came earlier. If so, three changes are necessary. One, the current R4 should be re-labelled as R3 (since the R4, as it is currently characterized, first came out earlier, in 2009). Two, there are only THREE main variants in 2009, R1 to R3. Three, the current R3, having been issued after 2009, should be re-labelled as R4.
Should these changes be carried, I also suggest a revamped characterization, intended to achieve a clearer and more uniform identification of variants and sub-variants. A bit of explanation of the terms used below.
Wide vs. normal width. As to the spacing between the digits of the date (“1993”) on the reverse, we’ll use “wide date,” in contrast to “normal-width date.” Let’s avoid using the term “narrow” as the opposite of “wide.” This is because “narrow” is also used when referring to the individual digit/letter (for fonts, think “arial” vs. “arial narrow”). So, to avoid confusion, we use “wide date” vis-a-vis “normal-width date.”
Size of letters/digits. The characterization used in numista includes “bold” or “thick” script, but this can be confusing because there are bold/thin sub-variants. For instance, there is R2-bold (the discussion of which we’ll reserve for a later date). The better characterization, in my view, is the distance between the date/letter and the inner circle (because, I gathered, the idea is to make the identification on sight, not using any magnifying lens or measuring tools).
With those considerations, we go to the MAIN POINTS OF IDENTIFICATION:
R1 - long sun rays; normal-width date
R2 - long sun rays; wide date, specially between “1” and “9;” medium digits, bigger space from inner circle
R3 - short sun rays; wide date, specially between “1” and “9”
R4 - long sun rays; wide date, specially between “1” and “9;” big digits, almost no space from inner circle
OTHER CHARACTERISTICS. I find it funny that the characterization is geared towards numismatic veterans, and not newbies (who should be the main beneficiaries, to help them in their numismatic journey). The guidelines are silent as to the significance of other factors, like the thickness of the inner circle or the depth of the cogwheels. Veterans know this, but newbies hardly have any guide because these are not mentioned in numista. There is also a need for a consensus whether these characteristics are considered confirmatory (should be present for the identification to be valid) or merely secondary (in case of conflict, the main points of identification should hold).
