Mexico: 5 pesos 2009-2022 km605 [solved]

N#589

The comments in the lines for the years 2009-2019 are completely superfluous since it doesn't indicate a new type, nor a variant, so I suggest to space them out?

Obviously the lines added 2020 -22 was done by somebody with my opinion, since they are without comments.

Thanks in advance

I’ll check mine to see the approximate date of the changeover from large to small.

In my opinion in the document it should point out that on the large design the eagles wing is either touching or close to ring and on the smaller bust the wing is far from the outer ring.

2009 I reckon, but in my collection I didn't note it, since it's of absolutely no importance, because  they are all the same type and no year has both.

Yeah I think it is around 2009 because that’s when they started using the inner core for the 10, 20 and 50 Centavo coins.

Requests sent :-)

Hello guys:

I have not seen this thread before, but I have a different opinion on the value of comments in year lines.

There are collectors who search just for type of coin, so they don't mean years nor variants.

Then, there are others focused on years, again not paying attention to variants.

Also who collects every different coin, including years, and in each year every variant (even errors, etc.).

And there are some who like variants over years, who like to have wide/narrow date; small/big font; curved/straight date; different minthouses, and many other differences, but they don' really mind which year is each one (Oh! I just realized I am one of those weird collectors!!!). So, in my case, I want to have a coin from years 1997/2008 and one from the rest (I assume the 2 last, without comments have the same variation of 2009/2019 issues).

So I think the comments of variations, even if said variations are in different years, and there is no variation on same one, still are valuable for some people.

Yes, I know we can add this variations on comments section of coin page, but then, they will not be visible when you search coin list (like when you check a swap list), and to know if there are variants, you need to open every individual page and go to comments section. I feel catalog, whenever possible must ease thing so user, not to complicate it.

I received a request to delete these comments, but will not process while some more points of view are posted.

Fine with me anyhow, just wanted to put you in the loop :-)

The “smaller design” is a change in the appearance/design of the coin. Sometimes a change in the design is considered a new type, sometimes it is noted, sometimes ignored.

(The previous paragraph applies separately for Numista, Krause, Schön, and for country catalogs. The “types” are the same for different catalogs in the vast majority of cases, but there are occasional cases where catalog 1 divides a set of coins into types on attribute X and catalog 2 divides the same set on attribute Y.)

In this case we have a noticeable change that happens at a particular time. The type gods have decided it isn't a type change, other people think it is a type change or at least a collectable change. It seems wrong to make the decision that the information about the type variation should be hidden from those who think it is significant.

Reviewing the guidelines on the comments section and mintage line comments I believe that full compliance would be to have the design size variation noted in the comment section with images and also mentioned in the individual mintage line comments ("Record further details specific to individual lines in the comments field: … design or legend varieties").

I just have one more question in general, don't we use fine as an opposite to bold and not thin?

Sjoelund

I just have one more question in general, don't we use fine as an opposite to bold and not thin?

Not sure what´s the question about, but I feel more reasonable to use weak as opposite to bold, and thick as opposite of thin, but of course bold and thin are somehow considered as opposite too.

Fine script versus bold, not thin! Thin would be versus fat!

Good morning, folks.

At this point, we'll be leaving the comments in the year lines. I do agree with Sjoelund: Fine makes more sense in this regard, so I will make that small modification. 

John

jasanche.