KM# 76.1a 10 CENTAVOS
6.0000 g., Brass, 26 mm. Obv: Large letters and national arms
Rev: Denomination within circle, wreath surrounds Edge: Plain
KM# 76.2a 10 CENTAVOS
6.0000 g., Brass, 26 mm. Obv: Small letters and national arms, with clouds behind pyramids Rev: Denomination within circle,
wreath surrounds Edge: Plain Note: Beaded border.
KM# 76.3 10 CENTAVOS
6.0000 g., Brass, 26 mm. Obv: National arms, without clouds
behind pyramid Rev: Denomination within circle, wreath
surrounds Edge: Plain
"Celui qui combat des monstres doit prendre garde à ne pas devenir monstre lui-même. Si tu contemples longtemps un abîme, l’abîme aussi regarde en toi." N.
Ex-référent/modérateur/administrateur à la retraite
Administrateur du catalogue, référent de nombreuses nations antiques et de la Lorraine.
Catalogue administrator, numerous Antique nations and Lorraine referee.
It would be better to merge them indeed, then in the comments a picture can be added to clarify the differences. Right now, it is very confusing wether a 10 centavos 2005-2007 coin is km 76.3 or 76.4. Only a referee can do such a merge though, who can we ask to do this?
Besides coins I love geometry. The avatar consists of each of the 35 hexominoes used precisely once. With the 5 large yellow shapes placed like this, the solution for tiling the remaining 30 hexominoes is unique.
I would personally really like to find a km76.2a image from 1995. So far I have found NONE on internet, apart from the 76.3 of course. All the other years are clear and straight forward.
So the question is, does the km76.2a EXIST in this universe?
1993-1995 ‘KM 76.2a’, where there are 2 date lines for 1995 KM BOTH with 76.2a, yet with a different description
type 1995-2007 date line listings:
again 2 1995 listings, yet now BOTH listed as ‘KM 76.1 a’ and only one line with a description (small date letters)
1998 +1999 + 2002 + 2003 listed WITHOUT KM numbers (???)
2005-2007 listed as ‘KM 76.4’ (!!!)
type 2005-2007 ‘KM 76.4’
listed for all three years in the date lines as ‘KM 76.3’ (???) (seems like this is a double listing, unless 2005-2007 all exist as BOTH KM 76.3 AND KM 76.4 (which seems unlikely), but then the difference between KM76.3 and KM 76.4 should be clear.
This obviously is a total mess, that needs fixing! (It is a bit problematic though that when you fix this, that peoples coin registrations will get messed up, so all members (certainly those with any coins listed in these years) should get a notification about checking their 1976-2007 10 centavos coins after cleaning up this mess)
I just did a 'modify data' request just fixing the 24 to 26 mm issue, mentioning this post to the referee.
Besides coins I love geometry. The avatar consists of each of the 35 hexominoes used precisely once. With the 5 large yellow shapes placed like this, the solution for tiling the remaining 30 hexominoes is unique.
I believe the pages should be merged. I will work on this later today, but I will leave it to y'all to provide me with photos of the differences between the coins.
Master Coin Referee
Coin referee for CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN, and SLV.
Revisor principal de monedas
Revisor de Numista para monedas de CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN y SLV.
I believe the pages should be merged. I will work on this later today, but I will leave it to y'all to provide me with photos of the differences between the coins.
Thank you! I just sent a modification request with this compilation:
Besides coins I love geometry. The avatar consists of each of the 35 hexominoes used precisely once. With the 5 large yellow shapes placed like this, the solution for tiling the remaining 30 hexominoes is unique.
Here is what the SCWC has to say about the 1995 issue:
If needed, I can supply images of these dates:
1989
1993
1994
1995
1998
1999
2002
2003
2005
Interesting image. On KM76.2a there are supposed to be clouds behind the pyramid, but on the picture with it there ARE no clouds…
The 1994 image I used is a bad picture, so that one would be nice for sure. For size consistency it would be nice to have 4 pictures of all 4 sub-types: 1989 (76.1a), 1993 or 1994 (76.2a I assume), 1995 or 1998 or 1999 or 2002 or 2003 (best looking coin) (all 76.3 I assume), 2005 (76.4 I assume).
For the image I created with the 4 sub-types I did a lot of resizing. What do you think of that image by the way Ole, is it correct for what you know?
Besides coins I love geometry. The avatar consists of each of the 35 hexominoes used precisely once. With the 5 large yellow shapes placed like this, the solution for tiling the remaining 30 hexominoes is unique.
About that image Ole sent: it seems the top picture is from a KM#76.3 coin with a small date, while the bottom picture seems to be with a normal date, though the difference is marginal. Maybe this listing has caused the 1995 confusion of listing a non-existent 1995 KM#76.2a coin, assuming Ole is right it does not exist. When re-listed it should go with the warning that reconfirmation is required. It would be good to contact that other catalogue about it.
Besides coins I love geometry. The avatar consists of each of the 35 hexominoes used precisely once. With the 5 large yellow shapes placed like this, the solution for tiling the remaining 30 hexominoes is unique.
Awesome, Ole! The KM#76.3 images are all different in design below the pyramid:
1995: 7 regular waves (like a sinus)
1998: 7 irregular waves
1999: 8 regular waves (like a sinus)
Besides coins I love geometry. The avatar consists of each of the 35 hexominoes used precisely once. With the 5 large yellow shapes placed like this, the solution for tiling the remaining 30 hexominoes is unique.
Wow, great job everyone. I think Ole is right, the problem is that there are duplicate years in several KM (not only 1995, but also 1993 (surely the copper-nickel version KM#76.2 exists). I have not found it on the internet and, I suppose it will only exist the brass version KM#76.2a. Years 2005, 2006 and 2007 are duplicated too in KM#76.3 and 76.4.
In short, with KM#76 and its versions I would do the following:
1. Leave KM#76.1 and 76.2 as it is, indicating both subtypes in the reference box (now only KM#76 appears) and try to find out if the year 1993 exists for this type of copper-nickel.
2. Leave KM#76.1a aside, with its two years of issue (1976 and 1989) since the coat of arms and the size of the legend are very different from the following years.
3. Merge the rest of KM#76.2a, 76.3 and 76.4 since the differences are small and can be explained in the Comments section. In this case, I would only leave, as Ole says, a line for the year 1995 with KM#76.3. In comments you can indicate what Krause says. For the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 I think the same thing happens. They are indicated in both KM#76.3 and 76.4, but I don't think there are two different coins for each of these 3 years (in Ucoin, for example, it puts the 3 years in KM#76.3 and does not mention KM#76.4) I would put a line for each year and in comments I would put what is necessary.
I just sent the “raw” images of 1976, 89, 03, 05, 06, 07, 10, 12, 14 to Edo, now it's up to him to put them “clean”, since I'm occupied with other things now. My last “job” for Honduras will be to look for cu-ni coins!
Wow, great job everyone. I think Ole is right, the problem is that there are duplicate years in several KM (not only 1995, but also 1993 (surely the copper-nickel version KM#76.2 exists). I have not found it on the internet and, I suppose it will only exist the brass version KM#76.2a. Years 2005, 2006 and 2007 are duplicated too in KM#76.3 and 76.4.
In short, with KM#76 and its versions I would do the following:
1. Leave KM#76.1 and 76.2 as it is, indicating both subtypes in the reference box (now only KM#76 appears) and try to find out if the year 1993 exists for this type of copper-nickel.
2. Leave KM#76.1a aside, with its two years of issue (1976 and 1989) since the coat of arms and the size of the legend are very different from the following years.
3. Merge the rest of KM#76.2a, 76.3 and 76.4 since the differences are small and can be explained in the Comments section. In this case, I would only leave, as Ole says, a line for the year 1995 with KM#76.3. In comments you can indicate what Krause says. For the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 I think the same thing happens. They are indicated in both KM#76.3 and 76.4, but I don't think there are two different coins for each of these 3 years (in Ucoin, for example, it puts the 3 years in KM#76.3 and does not mention KM#76.4) I would put a line for each year and in comments I would put what is necessary.
I also cant find a Cu-Ni 1993 10 centavos coin. My thought about this is that it would not have made sense to mint those, because of the smaller cu-ni and copper plated steel 20 and 50 centavos coins from that time.
Besides coins I love geometry. The avatar consists of each of the 35 hexominoes used precisely once. With the 5 large yellow shapes placed like this, the solution for tiling the remaining 30 hexominoes is unique.
While you're at it, look into this as well, please, the coins were not magnetic until 2010:
SCWC:
Numista:
I think the km76.4 is a non-existing type, if not, what is the difference between the two types? Because we also have to look for consistency, since there is a km76.4a to consider, maybe it's better to delete the last three lines of the km76.3?
Have fun thinking about that, as well. Not a small task!
Looks nice, but why do we need the mint in the year line text? Normally there is a field foreseen for the mint letters and hopefully soon the mint marks!
Royal British Mint - is that a new name for The Royal Mint?
No, that's why I'm perplexed, but maybe in some old ledgers you can see, who was paid how much for printing the coins each year? I wonder, if we really need to know who minted the coins.
In this case (year 2014), where it would be interesting how to separate the two mints, we have no way to find out, have we?
Maybe a 2014 minted in Spain looks a little different in some detail from the Dutch 2010, 2012 and 2014 coins?
Besides coins I love geometry. The avatar consists of each of the 35 hexominoes used precisely once. With the 5 large yellow shapes placed like this, the solution for tiling the remaining 30 hexominoes is unique.
I don't like the “maybe”. If they look the same, they are the same, and then who cares about the mint?
I love the maybe-factor. It has caused me to find many surprising coin-differences, as well as many other amazing things in life I would not have discovered without trusting on the seemingly very unlikely ‘maybe’ to be actually true, in spite of dismissing rational expectations. Trust the hunch! (sorry for going a little off-topic)
Besides coins I love geometry. The avatar consists of each of the 35 hexominoes used precisely once. With the 5 large yellow shapes placed like this, the solution for tiling the remaining 30 hexominoes is unique.
Good luck with hunting through a few hundreds of the 2014 coins. Now, let's suppose you find just two different designs? For you, it would be the Eureka experience, but what would be your answer to which “type” is for which “mint”? If the mints were NOT mentioned in the year line, you could argue you had found a new variant for the year 2014! It's complicated, since to know two mints were used, is just confusing, right?
This picture with 2005, 2006 and 2007 coins is interesting, as it is an indication for a 2005 overlap to exist. The 2005 coin looks like it is KM#76.3 with fine lettering and a small date, while the 2006 and 2007 coins have a big date and fairly thick lettering as I would expect for KM#76.4.
Besides coins I love geometry. The avatar consists of each of the 35 hexominoes used precisely once. With the 5 large yellow shapes placed like this, the solution for tiling the remaining 30 hexominoes is unique.
Good luck with hunting through a few hundreds of the 2014 coins. Now, let's suppose you find just two different designs? For you, it would be the Eureka experience, but what would be your answer to which “type” is for which “mint”? If the mints were NOT mentioned in the year line, you could argue you had found a new variant for the year 2014! It's complicated, since to know two mints were used, is just confusing, right?
I would tend to go rational after discovering a difference: if one would have the same design as 2010 and 2012 coins, while the other would have a slightly different design, only then it would become an Eureka experience, as only then the other coin would most likely be the Spanish version. The Dutch and Spanish mint are not known for being sloppy, causing variants.
Besides coins I love geometry. The avatar consists of each of the 35 hexominoes used precisely once. With the 5 large yellow shapes placed like this, the solution for tiling the remaining 30 hexominoes is unique.
Good luck with hunting through a few hundreds of the 2014 coins. Now, let's suppose you find just two different designs? For you, it would be the Eureka experience, but what would be your answer to which “type” is for which “mint”? If the mints were NOT mentioned in the year line, you could argue you had found a new variant for the year 2014! It's complicated, since to know two mints were used, is just confusing, right?
I would tend to go rational after discovering a difference: if one would have the same design as 2010 and 2012 coins, while the other would have a slightly different design, only then it would become an Eureka experience, as only then the other coin would most likely be the Spanish version. The Dutch and Spanish mint are not known for being sloppy, causing variants.
That's not really scientific as an approach, is it?
This picture with 2005, 2006 and 2007 coins is interesting, as it is an indication for a 2005 overlap to exist. The 2005 coin looks like it is KM#76.3 with fine lettering and a small date, while the 2006 and 2007 coins have a big date and fairly thick lettering as I would expect for KM#76.4.
Yes, I think you are right. The 2005 coin has the finer legend than the others. In fact, I don't think there are two 2005 but this year it only exists for KM#76.3
According to:
Krause (Standard Catalog of World Coins 13th Edition 2019), KM#76.4 2006, 2007 and 2010 (I think this last date is an error because 2010 is magnetic)
Krause (Numismaster website) KM#76.4 2005, 2006 and 2007
Colnect, KM#76.4 2006 and 2007.
Ucoin, they ignore KM#76.4 and describe the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 as KM#76.3
The only place that have a 2005 coin for KM#76.4 is Numismaster, so I really think that this year line could be deleted and move the owners to the year line 2005 KM#76.3, what do you think?
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
Then the km76.4a stands alone, which I don't like so much.
The difference between the 76.2a and the 76.3 are the clouds, please keep that in mind, you cannot play on fine and bold dates, please be serious.
Hi Ole, I understand you, but since there is a change in material (which in this case implies that it is also magnetic) Numista's instructions are very clear and this KM#76.4a should be on a different page.
And for this new page (thanks Some_Nerd for this great job):
This picture with 2005, 2006 and 2007 coins is interesting, as it is an indication for a 2005 overlap to exist. The 2005 coin looks like it is KM#76.3 with fine lettering and a small date, while the 2006 and 2007 coins have a big date and fairly thick lettering as I would expect for KM#76.4.
Yes, I think you are right. The 2005 coin has the finer legend than the others. In fact, I don't think there are two 2005 but this year it only exists for KM#76.3
According to:
Krause (Standard Catalog of World Coins 13th Edition 2019), KM#76.4 2006, 2007 and 2010 (I think this last date is an error because 2010 is magnetic)
Krause (Numismaster website) KM#76.4 2005, 2006 and 2007
Colnect, KM#76.4 2006 and 2007.
Ucoin, they ignore KM#76.4 and describe the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 as KM#76.3
The only place that have a 2005 coin for KM#76.4 is Numismaster, so I really think that this year line could be deleted and move the owners to the year line 2005 KM#76.3, what do you think?
This additional information gives the impression that indeed all 2005 10 c coins are KM#76.3. I think it would be worthwhile to contact Krause about this matter, as it is in their interest also to get this right. It would be good to find out as well how they had defined the difference between the .3 and .4 coins in the first place, if that is not made clear properly in their documentation.
Besides coins I love geometry. The avatar consists of each of the 35 hexominoes used precisely once. With the 5 large yellow shapes placed like this, the solution for tiling the remaining 30 hexominoes is unique.
This picture with 2005, 2006 and 2007 coins is interesting, as it is an indication for a 2005 overlap to exist. The 2005 coin looks like it is KM#76.3 with fine lettering and a small date, while the 2006 and 2007 coins have a big date and fairly thick lettering as I would expect for KM#76.4.
Yes, I think you are right. The 2005 coin has the finer legend than the others. In fact, I don't think there are two 2005 but this year it only exists for KM#76.3
According to:
Krause (Standard Catalog of World Coins 13th Edition 2019), KM#76.4 2006, 2007 and 2010 (I think this last date is an error because 2010 is magnetic)
Krause (Numismaster website) KM#76.4 2005, 2006 and 2007
Colnect, KM#76.4 2006 and 2007.
Ucoin, they ignore KM#76.4 and describe the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 as KM#76.3
The only place that have a 2005 coin for KM#76.4 is Numismaster, so I really think that this year line could be deleted and move the owners to the year line 2005 KM#76.3, what do you think?
This additional information gives the impression that indeed all 2005 10 c coins are KM#76.3. I think it would be worthwhile to contact Krause about this matter, as it is in their interest also to get this right. It would be good to find out as well how they had defined the difference between the .3 and .4 coins in the first place, if that is not made clear properly in their documentation.
Yes, maybe you are right and this line from 2005 KM#76.4 should not be deleted, but only Numismaster cites it, since Krause (in its I think last printed edition) did not cite it, nor do Ucoin or Colnect do so either.
Perhaps the best thing would be to write a Not confirmed comment in this year line.
It is also good to remember the number of errors that have been found in Krause...no one is perfect 😊
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
This picture with 2005, 2006 and 2007 coins is interesting, as it is an indication for a 2005 overlap to exist. The 2005 coin looks like it is KM#76.3 with fine lettering and a small date, while the 2006 and 2007 coins have a big date and fairly thick lettering as I would expect for KM#76.4.
Yes, I think you are right. The 2005 coin has the finer legend than the others. In fact, I don't think there are two 2005 but this year it only exists for KM#76.3
According to:
Krause (Standard Catalog of World Coins 13th Edition 2019), KM#76.4 2006, 2007 and 2010 (I think this last date is an error because 2010 is magnetic)
Krause (Numismaster website) KM#76.4 2005, 2006 and 2007
Colnect, KM#76.4 2006 and 2007.
Ucoin, they ignore KM#76.4 and describe the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 as KM#76.3
The only place that have a 2005 coin for KM#76.4 is Numismaster, so I really think that this year line could be deleted and move the owners to the year line 2005 KM#76.3, what do you think?
This additional information gives the impression that indeed all 2005 10 c coins are KM#76.3. I think it would be worthwhile to contact Krause about this matter, as it is in their interest also to get this right. It would be good to find out as well how they had defined the difference between the .3 and .4 coins in the first place, if that is not made clear properly in their documentation.
I used to a contributor to KM, but I cannot contact them anymore, the firm as such doesn't exist anymore, just the database numismaster.com is there, although in a bad health!
Please keep in mind that all coins before 2010 are not attracted to a magnet….
The 76.4 cited in SCWC is simply wrong. The alloys are not good, as I just pointed out, the coins are magnetic from 2010 only. You have to believe in our own research, since SCWC has no more contributors, so they'll get more and more coins wrong!
The people copying from KM to Numista just did, what they thought was correct without thinking. That's the reason there is so much cleaning to do in Numista, but let's do it intelligently with the knowledge of the coins we “PHYSICALLY” have amongst us.
Royal British Mint - is that a new name for The Royal Mint?
This is to prevent confusion with the Royal Spanish Mint for other denominations. In general, it's good practice to specify which royal mint you are referring to.
Master Coin Referee
Coin referee for CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN, and SLV.
Revisor principal de monedas
Revisor de Numista para monedas de CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN y SLV.
I also list the mints in the yearlines, as some collect coins minted by a country. For example, there is a group of collectors (including myself) who collect foreign coinage minted by the United States. If there are collectors who wish to collect every coin minted by the Royal Canadian Mint, than the comments are necessary.
Master Coin Referee
Coin referee for CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN, and SLV.
Revisor principal de monedas
Revisor de Numista para monedas de CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN y SLV.
For the 1976 and 1989 coins I created 2 images, one showing the main differences between sub-types 1, 2, 3 and 4, as well as one showing the difference between the dates on the 1976 and 1989 coins, that clearly have different font 1's and 9's, I already made a modification request with those images:
Besides coins I love geometry. The avatar consists of each of the 35 hexominoes used precisely once. With the 5 large yellow shapes placed like this, the solution for tiling the remaining 30 hexominoes is unique.
Besides coins I love geometry. The avatar consists of each of the 35 hexominoes used precisely once. With the 5 large yellow shapes placed like this, the solution for tiling the remaining 30 hexominoes is unique.
This picture with 2005, 2006 and 2007 coins is interesting, as it is an indication for a 2005 overlap to exist. The 2005 coin looks like it is KM#76.3 with fine lettering and a small date, while the 2006 and 2007 coins have a big date and fairly thick lettering as I would expect for KM#76.4.
They are, just as you see them, three different years of the same coin. Careful with interpreting anything to fit any kind of theory.
I'll repeat, it's only the 1995, which eventually might have two types, although it's not proven, that the type with clouds exists. Why do we now have 4 year lines for the 1995?
Why do 2006 and 2007 each have double year lines?
All rest of the types are determined by the year, so there is really no need to document anything else than the 1995, if possible at all.
After comparing all the pictures, as well as with some of the ones I found on internet, I could not find any differences within a single year line.
Here is a list of differences, where KM#76.3 comes in 3 varieties (I leave it to you guys wether that should be mentioned in the year lines or not, e.g. like ‘KM#76.3 variety 1, see comments’):
KM#76.1 1976, 1989: very large lettering, large Coat of Arms with less detail than the other types (separate listing) KM#76.2a 1993, 1994: small lettering and very small date, large Coat of Arms with clouds and cabin, 8 waves KM#76.3 1995, 2003, 2005: small lettering and medium date, small Coat of Arms without clouds and cabin, 7 regular waves KM#76.3 1999, 2002: hybrid of KM#76.2a and KM#76.3: large Coat of Arms, mostly the same as 1993 and 1994 including 8 waves, but without clouds and cabin KM#76.3 1998: variety on 1995, 2003, 2005: left tree bending left, sharp mountain right, 7 irregular waves, long branches right KM#76.4 2006, 2007: same Coat od Arms as 1995, 2003 and 2005, but with larger date and thicker lettering
With an image to compare 1, 2a, 3 and 4, as well as an image to compare the KM#76.3 varieties:
Besides coins I love geometry. The avatar consists of each of the 35 hexominoes used precisely once. With the 5 large yellow shapes placed like this, the solution for tiling the remaining 30 hexominoes is unique.
When it comes to merging date lines, I suggest the following for the next step of cleaning up:
1995: Currently there are 4 date lines, say 1, 2, 3 and 4.
KM#76.2a clearly has the smallest date, so I suggest to merge date lines 2 and 4 (both mentioning ‘small date’) into date line 1.
Date line 1 also needs the addition ‘confirmation needed’, as all the coins we know have the type KM#76.3.
2005: The coins known to us all are KM#76.3, but there still is confusion about this date line, so the dateline with 76.4 needs ‘probably non-existent, confirmation needed’ added.
2006 and 2007: merge these date lines into 76.4.
If nobody comes with a confirmation during the next year or so and/or if Krauss makes clear only one type exists, then a further merging of year lines can follow. Can everyone live with that or do you have a better suggestion?
And as nobody has responded to my images, I assume that means everyone is fine with them.
Besides coins I love geometry. The avatar consists of each of the 35 hexominoes used precisely once. With the 5 large yellow shapes placed like this, the solution for tiling the remaining 30 hexominoes is unique.
You know my opinion about type variants (not variants, as I define them), so to document them is up to you, and if the referee accepts the CR, then why not.
When it comes to merging date lines, I suggest the following for the next step of cleaning up:
1995: Currently there are 4 date lines, say 1, 2, 3 and 4.
KM#76.2a clearly has the smallest date, so I suggest to merge date lines 2 and 4 (both mentioning ‘small date’) into date line 1.
Date line 1 also needs the addition ‘confirmation needed’, as all the coins we know have the type KM#76.3.
2005: The coins known to us all are KM#76.3, but there still is confusion about this date line, so the dateline with 76.4 needs ‘probably non-existent, confirmation needed’ added.
2006 and 2007: merge these date lines into 76.4.
If nobody comes with a confirmation during the next year or so and/or if Krauss makes clear only one type exists, then a further merging of year lines can follow. Can everyone live with that or do you have a better suggestion?
And as nobody has responded to my images, I assume that means everyone is fine with them.
Besides coins I love geometry. The avatar consists of each of the 35 hexominoes used precisely once. With the 5 large yellow shapes placed like this, the solution for tiling the remaining 30 hexominoes is unique.
Kraus (Krause) will not bring anything new, since they don't exist any longer as a firm!
I did ranswer to your images.
Somehow the same message I sent you answered to got sent again, I don't know how, it was not my intention.
Thank you for answering. I think design differences should always be mentioned in the comments, as that is what types and sub types are based upon in the first place, apart from metal changes. Merging date lines obviously is something only a referee can do, I was hoping one of the referees would answer as well. I was not aware Krause doesn't exist anymore as a firm, yet somehow the KM system is still getting updated, as new coins are still getting new KM numbers. So whomever is behind that could be reached I assume.
Besides coins I love geometry. The avatar consists of each of the 35 hexominoes used precisely once. With the 5 large yellow shapes placed like this, the solution for tiling the remaining 30 hexominoes is unique.
Thomas Michael is trying to keep the numismaster database up-to date. https://numismaster.com/coins . That used to be the base for all the catalogs. As far as I know, there are no longer any contributors, at least I'm no longer feeding them any data.
Neither catalogs on paper nor DVD are no longer available.
Thomas Michael is trying to keep the numismaster database up-to date. https://numismaster.com/coins . That used to be the base for all the catalogs. As far as I know, there are no longer any contributors, at least I'm no longer feeding them any data.
Neither catalogs on paper nor DVD are no longer available.
Interesting website! So Thomas is responsible for for example linking ‘KM#784’ to the 2023 South African 5 rand coin? N#347516
Besides coins I love geometry. The avatar consists of each of the 35 hexominoes used precisely once. With the 5 large yellow shapes placed like this, the solution for tiling the remaining 30 hexominoes is unique.
