Serif "4" does it need to be on its own line? [Risolto]

From my research I have not yet found a consistent difference between the 1945 non-serif and serif “4”. According to percentages on numista, the serif “4” looks to be more rare, but most 80% of the examples I have found have prominant serifs on the “4”.

Does this then need to be on its own line on the page?

In this Swedish catalog, which contains a lot of varieties, there's no mentioning of a 1945 with or without serifs, so I guess it's not so obvious.

But you say 80 % of the coins you have found have prominent serifs on the “4”. Does that mean the other 20 % have no serifs, or they have serifs but not so prominent? If all coins have serifs, prominent or not, I don't think we need two year lines. If you've found coins with and without serifs, that second year line is justified.

I believe both year lines should be kept, at least temporarily, until more information is found.  SCWC reports both varieties (no pictures for examples) but a very significant difference in value. I looked on Ucoin for examples of each but couldn't be certain of a difference in the 4.  @Sjoelund has one of the higher value ones (Serif 4) in his collection. Maybe he can post pictures?

This is coming from the CR of the 1945 1 öre from Sweden:

my answer: The answer is not saved anywhere?, but it went like this “all the ‘4’s are in sherif, so no need for that mention”!

Here are my 1945: 

Here the 1943:

This is just a macro of the 1942, which I have laying around:

Of course, one can always discus more or less serif, but that's kind of ridiculous, since they all are serifs +-!

So now you know, why I deleted the mention of serif 4, and I see you have already acted on it.

Thanks

Ole

So the obvious question, why does NGC whose values are “compiled from a number of independent, third party sources in the numismatic community which NGC believes to be reliable” list the Serif 4 variety value as 10 times the no serif value if they are indistinguishable?  

I still think we don't know enough to delete the year line.

I always hear, that SCWC is full of errors. I also know Numista is full of errors, so I suppose NGC is suffering from bad information from the base as well? I dare you to find find a KM#810 without serif, just a slight serif is a serif😉

I've already stated I couldn't find one or at least two that I'm confident aren't the same.  If I did find one of each the discussion would be over. If I don't find one of each should the discussion still be over?

Since numista has some 200.000 members, just ask all the members, if they can show us an image of a not serif “4”. That's what numbers are good for😁

Since numista has some 200.000 members, just ask all the members, if they can show us an image of a not serif “4”. That's what numbers are good for😁

BTW, I'll delete my “non” serif “4” from numista, since I used for a slightly different purpose (missing a year line😇

so now it's looking like this, assuming the “serif” line will disappear someday, since all the lines are “serif”!

Sjoelund

Since numista has some 200.000 members, just ask all the members, if they can show us an image of a not serif “4”. That's what numbers are good for😁

Yes, good suggestion. That suggestion is exactly the same as my suggestions, “I believe both year lines should be kept, at least temporarily, until more information is found.” and “I still think we don't know enough to delete the year line.”  I'm glad we now agree.