5 Złotych 1975-1988, Y# 81 - why not splitted into two types

I have a question, why do we have 5 Złotych 1975-1988, Y# 81 as a one single coin type in Numista catalog? As far as I can see, Y#81.1 and Y#81.2 are quite visually even different, Y#81.2 has a redesigned eagle which is a big one, and Y#81.1 has a small eagle. Why not split it into two distinctive coin types in the catalog? We have some coin types with much less significant differences separated (e.g. France 10 Centimes 1941 with all those minor differences like MES underlined or not and dot around the date - and they are all separate coin types). Could you please share your vision? Probably we should initiate kind of a voting? Thank you!

PS: actually the same goes about 1 Złoty 1957-1988 (Y# 49.2 also shows changed design - eagle and lettering size which is not subtle but rather visually noticable) and 2 Złote 1975-1988 (Y# 80.2 changes in the eagle design) and 50 Groszy 1957-1987 (
Y#48.2 changed lettering size)

You should speak with the ref from Poland. If everything was done on this site by vote it might look odd.

Thank you! Who is the Polish referee?

doc_man or druzhynets can assist you with Poland. This matter is really case by case. I also have listings with .1 or .2 that I have given seperate pages to because of the radical difference in additional legends or Die letters or privy marks. People sometimes dont do additional pages if the differences are more discreet. Did you look under the notes to see if illustrations were made of the varieties?

Thank you for the reply! Yep, there are numerous such cases where some coin types could be merged and others should be separated. We need consistency in the catalog, in the coin type separation approach. It would be nice to create a listing of all such cases and have it corrected )

I think the consistency has to be by nation. If the nation is consistent that has to be enough.

Hi,
Variants coin 5 zlotych - Poland

a) Issued on: 1975
Last issue date: 1977

b) Issued on: 1978
Last issue date: 1985

c) Issued on: 1986
Last issue date: 1988

Hi, variants A and B - is the difference in lettering thickness? Thank you!

How could we name all these 3 variants? 1) Small eagle 2) ? 3) Large eagle

Also it would be nice if you could post here the same type difference with images for 2 Zloty, 1 Zloty, 50 Groszhy. I hope it would be visually convincing for all Numista members that some type segregation should be performed ))

Eagle and lettering size the same.

Well, so for the purpose of the catalog on Numista I would distinguish and list two separate types for 5 Zloty 1) Small eagle 2) Redesigned Large eagle

a) Issued on: 1975
Last issue date: 1977
Struck at Leningrad Mint
b) Issued on: 1978
Last issue date: 1985
Struck at Warsaw Mint
c) Issued on: 1986
Last issue date: 1988
Redesigned eagle - Struck at Warsaw Mint

Cita: "gebikimame2017"​I have a question, why do we have 5 Złotych 1975-1988, Y# 81 as a one single coin type in Numista catalog? As far as I can see, Y#81.1 and Y#81.2 are quite visually even different, Y#81.2 has a redesigned eagle which is a big one, and Y#81.1 has a small eagle. Why not split it into two distinctive coin types in the catalog? We have some coin types with much less significant differences separated (e.g. France 10 Centimes 1941 with all those minor differences like MES underlined or not and dot around the date - and they are all separate coin types). Could you please share your vision? Probably we should initiate kind of a voting? Thank you!
​
​PS: actually the same goes about 1 Złoty 1957-1988 (Y# 49.2 also shows changed design - eagle and lettering size which is not subtle but rather visually noticable) and 2 Złote 1975-1988 (Y# 80.2 changes in the eagle design) and 50 Groszy 1957-1987 (
​Y#48.2 changed lettering size)

​As i take Poland under my command this page was already created. As you can see there are so many coins during PRL time. In my opinion splitting this page have no sens as the differences are very small. Ie. Poland issues new design 1,2,5 Groszy in 2014. Till 2016 was minted by Royal Mint and since 2017 by Warsaw mint. Should i split this page because the mint mark has changed ? No sens to me. As you can see now is clear displayed : https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces2063.html All necessary information you can find in comment field. The same is with other mentioned pages.

Of course i will discuss about this topic with other referees and we make decision what to do.
If you will have any other questions, just let me know.

Edit :

In my opinion this are major design changes.

Thank you for the reply! I am not offering to split by mint, only for the major design change )) So for 5 Zloty it is enough to have two types (small eagle/redisigned eagle and lettering), the same goes about 1 Złoty 1957-1988 (Y# 49.2 also shows changed design - eagle and lettering size which is not subtle but rather visually noticable) and 2 Złote 1975-1988 (Y# 80.2 changes in the eagle design) and 50 Groszy 1957-1987 (
​Y#48.2 changed lettering size)

Cita: "gebikimame2017"​Thank you for the reply! I am not offering to split by mint, only for the major design change )) So for 5 Zloty it is enough to have two types (small eagle/redisigned eagle and lettering), the same goes about 1 Złoty 1957-1988 (Y# 49.2 also shows changed design - eagle and lettering size which is not subtle but rather visually noticable) and 2 Złote 1975-1988 (Y# 80.2 changes in the eagle design) and 50 Groszy 1957-1987 (
​​Y#48.2 changed lettering size)

​Im not sure if this qualify as major design. If you check polish 1,2,5 Groszy till 2014 and since 2014 till date
You can notice that they are magnetic and non- magnetic type. The design is changed and type of metal is changed  : Brass plated Steel vs Manganic Brass. This in my opinion are major changes that qualify to a new page.

The changes you mention in my opinion are cosmetic changes and there is no need to create a new page for them.

Regards,
Damian

Well, let it be then as it is ) But I would like to see consistency throughout the catalog, as I mentioned earlier, some countries do have split out even minor desin changes (like dots, mintmark), others do not, here with 5 Zloty for me these are two different types, their eagle sides are too different, thank you!

Cita: "gebikimame2017"here with 5 Zloty for me these are two different types, their eagle sides are too different, thank you!

​+1

To be more precisly, this cosmetic change are described in page comment sections.

Below you can find major changes for this coin
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces16499.html

Well, it is well-understood BUT when you collect by type, you have to mark two coins within the same entry so that on the dashboard of your collection it says that one of the coins is not a unique type as if you were collecting by date and not by type )) Moreover it is too tedious to go through every coin type inside to see whether it comprises a number of major types within enrty, that is the point ) + consistency, e.g. French coins, again Ukrainian 25 Kopeks with dots inside berries and not (these are singled out as two different types although they are not, same composition , very minor difference) and 10 Kopeks with 5 dots and 6 dots (again listing as two different types, and in fact these are two variants of the same type, not separate types, and here with Poland we have a too generalistic approach making many different coin types with quite major design changes be incorporated into bulky types making a hell for TYPE collecors (as I mentioned before the dashborad statistics issue to name a few). So I am voting for consistency )) Different metal composition/noticable design changes, even lettering/coin shape/diameter = a new separate type on Numista (consider e.g. Belgian 50 Centimes with smaller and larger heads which are listed separately, althouth the encreased size is not too eye-catching) We need consistency )) Also the same issue with Cyprus 20th cent coins (1980s) - three types are within a single entry although lettering and arms design is different across the three coins)

Cita: "gebikimame2017"​Well, it is well-understood BUT when you collect by type, you have to mark two coins within the same entry so that on the dashboard of your collection it says that one of the coins is not a unique type as if you were collecting by date and not by type )) Moreover it is too tedious to go through every coin type inside to see whether it comprises a number of major types within enrty, that is the point ) + consistency, e.g. French coins, again Ukrainian 25 Kopeks with dots inside berries and not (these are singled out as two different types although they are not, same composition , very minor difference) and 10 Kopeks with 5 dots and 6 dots (again listing as two different types, and in fact these are two variants of the same type, not separate types, and here with Poland we have a too generalistic approach making many different coin types with quite major design changes be incorporated into bulky types making a hell for TYPE collecors (as I mentioned before the dashborad statistics issue to name a few). So I am voting for consistency )) Different metal composition/noticable design changes, even lettering/coin shape/diameter = a new separate type on Numista (consider e.g. Belgian 50 Centimes with smaller and larger heads which are listed separately, althouth the encreased size is not too eye-catching) We need consistency )) Also the same issue with Cyprus 20th cent coins (1980s) - three types are within a single entry although lettering and arms design is different across the three coins)

​Yes, you are right for type collector it can be a problem. I will figure out something.

Thank you so much!!! All type collectors will really appretiate it )) Also we should not entirely base our type devision on Krause, as it is also full of mistakes and broken logic. We should follow common sense. And it would be nice if some kind of discussion among all Numista referees is held to improve consitency and eliminate such descrepencies as I mentioned above ) Thank you once again!!!

For me, these are very minor changes. I would like to invite you to check Czech Republic 10, 20 and 50 haleru pages - there are so many minor differences through the years, and splitting them to 4 or more pages would be quite crazy.

Yes Jarek, they are minor changes, maybe there is possibility to count them in other way for type collectors ?

Interestingly, I perceive these differences quite clearly, and I would divide Y#81.1 and Y#81.2.

Yep, and all we need is consitency throughout Numista catalog, that is what I am struggling for! And always take into account common sense and logic, Krause is not always the Bible (minor changes in design which are hardly percivieable at the first glance should be merged into single types, and those coins with quite major design changes - should be separate types. )

Here is a nice reference material regarding coin types distinction:

http://typesets.wikidot.com/what-is-type-set-collecting

"A type coin is a representative coin from a given series. Type coins are collected based on the series they exemplify instead of its date and mintmark"

"Nice definition but what is a coin series? I’ve seen various statements or opinions on this so I stayed with a simple approach by asking what defines a coin in order to establish a coin series. What surfaced were the following 6 elements:
Minting Source: Country, Territory, Province, State, Business, etc…
Denomination: cent, dime, etc…
Obverse Design
Reverse Design
Size/Shape: large, small, 12-sided, square, etc…
Composition/Weight: silver, copper/nickel, etc…
To better illustrate this lets compare the 6 elements of two Lincoln cents, one from 1930 and one from 1960:



In this example, everything matches except for the reverse design so that is our defining point for a new coin type or series. The two type coins can now be called Lincoln Cent type 1 (wheat) and Lincoln Cent type 2 (memorial)."

"Varieties
Some, if not most, type sets include some variety coins in addition to types. Varieties are intentional or deliberate modifications to the design, composition, or mintage source of a coin series after it has been issued for circulation.

Listed below are examples of varieties:
Minting Source Varieties – Addition of mint branches such as Denver
Obverse Design – Addition or removal of stars, drapes, arrows, etc…
Reverse Design – Addition or removal rays, motto's, initials, etc…
Composition/Weight – Changes in percentage allocation of composition, 90% silver versus 40% silver
Sometimes variety changes overlap. For example, in the seated liberty quarter series the composition weight was modified in 1853 from its original weight of 103.1 grains to 96 grains and to recognize the difference in coins they added arrows around the date of the obverse design.

Major and Minor Varieties
Typically, varieties are classified as major or minor, but, I have yet to find a good definition as to what constitutes major or minor. Definition of major and minor is subjective and left to the individual collector's preference. Listed below are the rules of thumb I use for determining major or minor classifications:

Minting source varieties – the addition of new minting sources is minor.
Obverse and reverse designs – if I can see the difference without the assistance of magnification then it is a major change (this includes the relocation of mintmarks or designer initials).

Composition/Weight – Weight changes are minor, while % changes in regards to composition are major for example a composition change from 90% silver & 10% copper to 40% silver & 60%copper. In the example the composition is the same (silver/copper) but the % allocations changed."

+ Error Varieties - Accidental modifications due to, die errors, planchet laminating, or manufacturing"

So to sum it up, all Numista catalog coin types should be based on hard-coded fundamental principles. All minor variants, varities, errors, trial strikes - they should be included into the corresponding coin type.

At the moment in Numista everything is quite different from country to country, we have very detailed listings for some countries with very minor varities listed as separate coin types like France as an example and too generalistic approach coin listings for some other countries where separate coin types are incorporated into even a larger coin type, also we are having specific country referee wars, e.g. with Portugal and France where all Euro coins, even in silver are attributed as circulating coins and all modification requests are rejected (we all know that oficially all Euro coins only up to 2 Euros in denomination are circulating ones, i.e. business strikes, in other words the coins that were intended to end up in someone’s pocket change and what goes higher in denomination is more of NCLTs nature), so we need consistency and house-keeping (cleaning) work!

And also edge varieties - if the design, shape, diameter and composition are the same but there are edge variants - they also should be incorporated into a single coin type.

PS: no meant to hurt anyone's feelings or nothing personal ))

Later on I will start posting such descrepancies as a list into this thread so that all this stuff is in one place for anyone interested and indifferent if no one objects.

Thank you

The first candidate on my list:

Ukraine coin types

1)

the same composition, diameter should be the same, 16.3 mm is listed mistakenly and should be verified once again by the referee, then the difference in the number of berries is too minor and these two coin types should be merged into a single one, it is more of a variety than of coin type

2)

again it seems that the composition as aluminum-bronze is listed by mistake, it should be verified by the corresponding referee, obviously 1992 coins were all minted from brass, and the difference with berries with dots inside and dots missing is agan more of a varity difference than of coin type, the two should be merged into a single coin type listing all these variety details, which should be of course available in the catalog so that everyone can benefit from such an approch, coin type collectors and year/variety collectors (again remember the issue with statistics on the dashboard of your pesonal collection when you collect by type discussed earlier in the thread)

To be continued ))

Done

Thank you so much!!!! All type collectors will really appretiate the change!!!

However, one minor effort should be made additionally:

1) for the first type 1 Złoty (large type; large date) 1957-1988

Obviously, the 1988 end year is not correct, it should be 1985



2) the same should be done for 50 Groshy, i.e. separation into two coin types by analogy

1957-1985 (large type; large date)
1986-1987(large type; small date)



3) Can we logically incorporate "1 Złoty (large type; error) 1987 Copper-nickel – ø 25 mm" into "1 Złoty (large type; small date) 1986-1988 Y# 49.2" ?

It would be sensible and logical as this kind of error coin is very rare and is more of a variant, than a separate coin type, it would be enough for it to be listed within the "1 Złoty (large type; small date) type.



4) it should be Y# for this type "1 Złoty (large type; small date) 1986-1988 Y# 49.2", not KM#



The same goes for 2 Złote (2nd Eagle Design)



and 5 Złotych (2nd Eagle Design)



Thank you so much again!!!

PS: I will continue posting such descrepencies for other countries into this thread as I started some time ago so that we could discuss and take further action )

ad 1
I cant change that, maybe numista admins
Ad 2
done
Ad 3
done
Ad 4
done

Cita: "doc_man"​ad 1
​I cant change that, maybe numista admins

​Done.

Thank you so much!

One more minor effort to be made:



I really appretiate it!

No problem, will check the rest.
this one done too
ps.
if you findout something more please let me know.
Regards,
Damian

Sure, thank you so much!!!