Cuban 10 Centavo - New type for 1994?

In the Numista catalogue the 1994 through 2018 are all listed as the same type. Should the 1994 be a different type? Alignment is different, and a lot of the device details are different on both the obverse and reverse. On the reverse the building block sizes are different, roofs are different, and a couple of other angles and positions are different. On the obverse the shield designs are different, especially around the tree and at the top. What are your thoughts, or do I have some sort of pattern?

Hi,

that can be defended both ways, but it's not really important, since the two different designs were not used in the same year. As you might know I'm a variant hunter, but here I rest neutral.

Anyway it's a good observation from you and thanks for reporting it. In my opinion you ought to put your documentation in the "comments" section on the coins page (which you should have indicated in the posting, but ni modo).

Thanks for the response. I am still "new" to Numista (less than a year) and still trying to figure out all the details of maintaining the database. Don't want to mess up what is already here, not sure of the limits of what I can do. Anyway, as I was checking for better coins to upgrade my types, came across this. Will see if I can get in touch with the referee for those coins, see what (s)he thinks.

Quote: "KLFenstermaker"​Thanks for the response. I am still "new" to Numista (less than a year) and still trying to figure out all the details of maintaining the database. Don't want to mess up what is already here, not sure of the limits of what I can do. Anyway, as I was checking for better coins to upgrade my types, came across this. Will see if I can get in touch with the referee for those coins, see what (s)he thinks.

​As such you can NOT mess anything up, since all CR (Change Request) go through a referee, so if your suggested change is not coherent according to the referee, he'll just not introduce it in the base. Simple, so just have a go, the data base is not risking to be destroyed.

Quote: "KLFenstermaker"​Thanks for the response. I am still "new" to Numista (less than a year) and still trying to figure out all the details of maintaining the database. Don't want to mess up what is already here, not sure of the limits of what I can do. Anyway, as I was checking for better coins to upgrade my types, came across this. Will see if I can get in touch with the referee for those coins, see what (s)he thinks.

​You have an eye for the unusual / variants. Nice attribute to have. Well done on spotting it

It is well known that Cuban coins often vary

Found the same issues with the 1994 25 Centavo coin. Just recently received them in a bulk purchase, so can do comparisons. Definitely should be type of its own. Doing some detail photos, will share later.

Quote: "KLFenstermaker"Definitely should be type of its own.

​Indeed a good eye. I have dozens of this type but never noticed the difference (mainly because I only compare coins with the same date). But despite your good eye, it still is the same design and the differences are very minor so "definitely should be type of its own" is a bridge too far.
KM# sometimes assigns a subnumber to minor variations, like f.i. for Guatemala coins (https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces2259.html) but often they don't.

So when do the minor variations add up enough to be major?

Diagonal bars in shield are different. 1994 is flat, others are concave

Fonts are different. Leave patterns are different. Horizontal lines in late issues intersect edge, 1994 is spaced

Edge of shield is different. 1994 is solid, later dates suns rays segment the edge

Major difference is stone work

Again, stonework and the gate? between buildings are different

Differences in the base of the tower and the three spires

Peak of tower is different, as well as font

I understand what you are saying, but I think there are enough changes to warrant the new type. If I extrapolate your comments (stretching it a bit, don't get down on me), the different Belgium coins (Dutch and French text) would be the same. Same designs, minor change in the text.

Anyway, this is a discussion and we all have our own opinions. Thanks for the feedback

Ken
United States

Quote: "KLFenstermaker"​So when do the minor variations add up enough to be major?

...I think there are enough changes to warrant the new type.
​Anyway, this is a discussion and we all have our own opinions. ​

We all have opinions but it's not upon us to make such decisions. Only KM can assign a KM# reference number to a coin type, if they feel the variations are too minor to give the coin a new number or sub number, so be it.

Quote: "Essor Prof"​

Quote: "KLFenstermaker"​So when do the minor variations add up enough to be major?
​
​...I think there are enough changes to warrant the new type.
​​Anyway, this is a discussion and we all have our own opinions. ​

​We all have opinions but it's not upon us to make such decisions. Only KM can assign a KM# reference number to a coin type, if they feel the variations are too minor to give the coin a new number or sub number, so be it.

​Am I looking at the same thing? The 1994 already has a sub number assigned. So does the 1994 25 centavos.

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1054.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1056.html

Check this link
http://www.ciscoins.net/america/encuba.htm

Quote: "Nippon 725"​Check this link 
​http://www.ciscoins.net/america/encuba.htm

​The link is no good.

 

Links have a tendency to go broken after a certain time (owner didn't care any longer), or simply disappeared from this state of presence. 

Quote: "rsirian1"​​​Am I looking at the same thing? The 1994 already has a sub number assigned. So does the 1994 25 centavos.

​How stupid am I. Yes, we're looking at the same thing. The stupidity is I saw that different sub number but it didn't ring a bell. I connected that sub number only to the difference in alignment, not to the minor differences in design. But obviously I forgot the main thing: the 1994 coin does have it's own sub number, which is very okay for me. But apparently that's not enough for the OP.

The 1994 coins were struck in Ottawa, Canada while the other dates were struck in Havana, Cuba. That explains the small differences in design and the difference in alignment.

What would you say on these ones I came across?

 I would say over used dies. The dies life time is over.  Now with US coins i have heard the name orange peel error used to describe this, because it looks like an orange peel. But it is only the die on it last legs.

 Oh , KLFenstermaker good eye