Policy regarding the inclusion of varieties in the catalog

I've noticed that both the US and UK sections now include a whole lot of overdates, minor die changes or retooling which may have been present all along and I've just noticed them. There does seem to be some inconsistency in how these are cataloged and it has a very arbitrary feel. There may be a similar theme affecting other countries but these are the two I'm most familiar with.

Here are two examples of what I'm referring to -

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces6879.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces13119.html

Both issues have acknowledged date variations however in the 1823 KM# 677 example it is listed on a separate line whereas the 1754 overdate is merely noted and not entered as a separate coin.

By the time you get to the mid Victoria Pennys, where there are literally hundreds of well documented varieties, the picture is getting even more confusing. There are 14 separate entries for the 1860 types alone. Many people try to collect the different die numbers found on many of the early QV coins but these are not listed individually, instead the catalog just notes whether a die number is present or not. It's probably something beyond the scope of Numista so I'm not making the argument that they should be included, I just can't understand how it's being decided what's in and what's out. Are errors such as worn or cracked dies included if there was a substantial production run? I personally welcome the inclusion of widely recognized but minor intentional changes, especially for Victorian copper which is supported by a wealth of research and documentation but I don't think that errors belong in the main catalog at all.

So I guess the question boils down to this, are there any published rules for deciding how to handle minor varieties and how successfully are the guidelines, if any, being implemented?

Any thoughts, questions or observations?

First of all, I believe that we should strive for consistent catalogue.

In this case - I believe that having 14 entries for one year is somehow crazy. Maybe some sort of rollable menu would be great. Like having one entry for 1860 and when clicked, it would open those 14 different variants somehow.

Hi there,

variants are still not very accepted in numista, because SCWC doesn't really document them either! You cannot have several different variants to a KM-type in different years! Try to find the logic in that?

I am well placed to comment on this, because of my extra hobby: Finding and documenting variants!

Ole