The question is again in which line it should go? Since the year lines are not commented in the “Comments” section, I don't understand why, somebody must have the catalog explanations for those lines, so why not show us, why they are like they are? I suppose again the coin will first go into the line with the highest percentage? Why not create a year line for “not possible to assign properly”?
I agree when we have extra year lines in our catalog for varieties these should be or self explanatory or documented in the comments sector. But in this case the problem is not the bad documentation but the bad condition of your coin. Even with well documented year lines it still would be a problem for proper assignment, the date alone is already a guess.
But creating an extra year line for “not possible to assign properly” coins is a bad idea. Every coin can be run over by a train, spent a century in the ground, got stuck in the washing machine or whatever, so we have to add an extra year line for all the coin types that consist of more than one year line? Then we are severely littering our catalog!
The best way is to add in a year line and write a personal comment.
But that's not the question, since I know the year, the mint, so that isn't adequate at all for a year, mint and variation collector like me. I'm sorry, if I have not explained myself clearly? At least now I'm more clear than the undocumented year lines🤣
It should be forbidden, if there is no documentation supporting it. Please don't tell me to buy the “Franc” catalog to be able to understand Numista year lines.
Show for each year and mint a graphic for each variant. We did that for the US, so why can't it be done for the French coins as well?
Maybe I'm just not understanding what you're objecting to. Sure the Numista catalog should be completely self contained, not rely on any outside references but that's not practical. At least when the is a Franc catalog reference we can click the link and get examples of most of the variants. It would be nice to have direct links to the SCWC KM references, too.
And there is no explanation, beautiful images for sure, maybe with some cross-checking it would be possible to set up some understandable documentation, the images are there (sometimes).
I’ve put the Dupre on « hold« for classification. I still buy them or exchange. The day I’ll have more time to identify them I’ll invest in documentation. maybe by then numista catalog would have been updated.
I'm still trying to equalize the year lines in numista with the CGB documentation, I'm ONLY concentrating on this special coin, and so far I can't find a pattern, so I don't know, how the year lines in Numista were created.
I have a headache, because Numista and CGB don't see eye to eye, I think?
I have made these two tables, and they don't seem to fit each other, so where did all the numista year lines come from?
On top of it, the French have taken the KM# relation out, just giving the universal number km644, although the mint AA is km644.2! It's really been made into a complete mess. Nothing fits with anything. @Jarcek
