Please move owners of Peruvian note, year line Feb. 3rd., 1979 of N# 216806 to year line Feb. 1st., 1979 of N# 374444, and delete wrong line. Out of misplaced, day was wrong.
Thanks in advance.
Just 10 options: you understand binary, or you don't.
Catalog Referee Coins, Banknotes & Exonumia: Uruguay, Cuba, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Panama, Ecuador, Zamunda, Parva Domus and more.
Please move owners of Peruvian note, year line Feb. 3rd., 1979 of N# 216806 to year line Feb. 1st., 1979 of N# 374444, and delete wrong line. Out of misplaced, day was wrong.
Thanks in advance.
Sorry, its not obvious to me: why those 2 entries pages are separated?
Hmmm … Seems I put the wrong link on second note, it is fixed now.
Very similar design, different years and different printer. (in my opinion, I would put all similar notes in just one page, but I tried before, and they came with hooks and torchs 👿😠😡).
Just 10 options: you understand binary, or you don't.
Catalog Referee Coins, Banknotes & Exonumia: Uruguay, Cuba, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Panama, Ecuador, Zamunda, Parva Domus and more.
The only difference I see (outside the obvious: serials and signatures) are in the guilloches.
On the left they protrude further into the field and on the right it is spikier, there might be more subtle changes but the banknote museum picture is quite crappy. But such small differences don't seem split worthy imo.
The only difference I see (outside the obvious: serials and signatures) are in the guilloches.
On the left they protrude further into the field and on the right it is spikier, there might be more subtle changes but the banknote museum picture is quite crappy. But such small differences don't seem split worthy imo.
I agree, those should be merged.
I asked other Admins and they concur.
By our guidelines, same banknote type may gather “Minor and unsignificant changes to the design (for example, small colour or alignment variations)”
Adaniely you can proceed if you agree too :-)
Status changed to Done(Jarcek, 28 Eyl 2023, 21:01)
Well… I agree differences are subtle, an I think when the main design is unchanged, they should be merged. Small differences (year, signatures, typography, etc.) Should be listed as variants only.
As said before, I wanted to merge some notes from Bolivia and some users got angry about it. Here is an example.
Will be happy to hear opinions.
Just 10 options: you understand binary, or you don't.
Catalog Referee Coins, Banknotes & Exonumia: Uruguay, Cuba, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Panama, Ecuador, Zamunda, Parva Domus and more.
I must disagree like usual on this matter. When different banknote printers produce a note, is a completely new engraved matrix. I do not think I have come at you with hooks and torches, but auction houses, businesses, the aftermarket, central banks see these notes as completely different, and it always will amaze me that Numista wants to lump all these notes in the same category. I think if you physically had everyone of these notes in front of you you could easily see why they need to have their own listing. Krause is absolutely correct on this point.
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...