Belgium: 5 francs 1986, die errors.

N#757

So far I know about these die errors:

In the catalog one of them has got its own year line! Isn't that against the guide lines ?

It's OK in my opinion to mention such errors in the Comments section, but they should be held away from the year lines. Nearly 10% of the members having this year have the coin with the “E” mint error…

I think sometimes die errors such as this get their own year line because being the die they could make a couple 100,000 coins so kind of become a de facto variety.

However this one has me perplexed.  N#752

Cud?

I do agree completely, but what about the guidelines, maybe yes, maybe not? Where to place the limits? In the end it's the poor referee, who's either right or wrong, who knows?

In the end, the referee is always right (see Canada) until he's not but by then it's too late, the catalog is a mess.

The guidelines:

Varieties (also known as variants) are coins of the same type with distinct details in the design that set them apart from others. Varieties may be a result of changes that occur during the production of the die, generally on purpose.

Notice the word “generally on purpose”  so a die change, not on purpose, can be considered a variant. 

Open, Sesame, to be used with caution and wisdom…. we really don't want to clutter the catalog more than necessary, do we?

So I will make a CR to have all those “die errors” in the comments section, as a reminder of the possibilities of errors in that year, and leave the “E” type (no, not the car) as it is?

Sjoelund

 

In the catalog one of them has got its own year line! Isn't that against the guide lines ?

Maybe because that one is in the official Belgian catalog (Mor# 804a)?