I am away from reference books for the moment, but will take a look when I can.
Sometimes Numista “splits” types differently from other catalogs because our guidelines are different. And sometimes we keep things together that other catalogs split.
At the least, we have overlap between these two listings, so something will be done to correct that.
Yes true, it needs to be corrected and the one I mentioned needs to be removed as there is neither a reason nor a scientfic foundation to keep it in the database. It's completely lacking any proof and substance.
I was often reprimanded when I tried to create a new page with a variant from an ancient coin with the explanation “it's just a variation, no need to create a separate entry”
So this is what must happen to that separate page. Reject and delete.
The Guidelines still state that different edges are different types and should be on separate pages.
Then the guidelines, in this case, make no sense at all. Example: when you have one coin from 1650 that says IMPERATOR on the reverse and the next same exact coin says IMP • RAT, then it's a variant and unworthy to even mention but when the same two coins have different edges then it's a separate entry? Sorry, makes no sense to me. Especially reeded and cable edges can dissappear over time due to age and wear and tear or clipping. But a rare misprint or variation in the lettering of the coin is totally irrelevant? No, no. That's just plain weird.
In many numismatic circles, milled coins are seen as having three surfaces: the obverse, the reverse and the edge.
One wouldn't say a cylinder has only two surfaces, right? A milled coin is designed as a cylinder. It has three surfaces, and there are design decisions made about all three.
Let's say we had a coin with “bars” pattern on the reverse, and we had a coin with an inscription instead on the reverse, but the obverse was the same. These would be two different types, right?
We can choose to be systematic and logical, or we can make a conscious decision to not do that in some cases.
The Guidelines still state that different edges are different types and should be on separate pages.
Then the guidelines, in this case, make no sense at all. Example: when you have one coin from 1650 that says IMPERATOR on the reverse and the next same exact coin says IMP • RAT, then it's a variant and unworthy to even mention but when the same two coins have different edges then it's a separate entry? Sorry, makes no sense to me. Especially reeded and cable edges can dissappear over time due to age and wear and tear or clipping. But a rare misprint or variation in the lettering of the coin is totally irrelevant? No, no. That's just plain weird.
You seem to be using past experience emotion in your argument. The two don‘t go together, I am sure that many would agree with you over IMP RAT or IMPERATOR, but this isn’t the conversation we are having.
KM also has a different number for earlier years of this coin, and the guidelines of this website separate the coin as per differences in edge and type, if we all just ignored the guidelines the website would be a mess. Likewise a change will not be initiated if it goes against the guidelines, whatever your opinion of them. I myself find it quite logical to separate them that way, but am happy either way.
„If your reply or post in the Forum stinks of AI, I will call you out! Knowledge comes from experience, the I in AI stands for incompetence.“
I can understand that we have discussions and disagreements on how to handle Dutch Republic coins.
KM splits some of them into subtypes just based on privy marks and mint marks, and that is discouraged in the Numista guidelines, so we try to avoid that.
On the other hand HPM which is one of the most up-to-date Dutch language catalogs tends to retain a single type for some instances where Numista allows the types to be split.
But KM, HPM and Numista all agree to not have types or subtypes for minor variations like how the same word is abbreviated, or how the punctuation is made.
Every cataloging system has its rules, and also its gray areas, and each also makes mistakes sometimes.
Utrecht, Province of • 3 Gulden (Late type; cabled edge)
