Hello
recently i noticed that my 1970 coins are minted by “BP.”but there is no BP. In 1970 numista page there’s only BP without the dot.
2 FORINT Numista page: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1893.html
if it’s something that i misunderstood can someone explain it to me, if not the page has to be changed.
I don’t have a good camera but here’s the pictures:
Thank you very much.
Quote: "rsirian1"Hello,
All these coins have a period after the mintmark BP. If yours didn't have a period after it would be a variant. Does that make sense?
yes but why does the numista page have not written a dot after BP and its only written for “in sets”. The same problem is in here too: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces809.html
sorry for any grammar mistakes.
I don't know for sure but my guess is the "in sets" year lines were added after the page was created and the member who added them decided that BP. was the "correct" mint mark and used that instead of following what already existed on all the other year lines. One would hope that the referee who validated the change request would have fixed the inconsistency but probably didn't even notice. That's one of the problem with catalogs such as this, no consistent oversight.
Quote: "rsirian1"I don't know for sure but my guess is the "in sets" year lines were added after the page was created and the member who added them decided that BP. was the "correct" mint mark and used that instead of following what already existed on all the other year lines. One would hope that the referee who validated the change request would have fixed the inconsistency but probably didn't even notice. That's one of the problem with catalogs such as this, no consistent oversight.
Your grammar was fine.
yes. I also think these pages have to be checked every year by Numista team not that isn’t checked many times but is has to be like checking all of the pages like this yearly(note that i dont know how many people are in Numista team really).
Quote: "rsirian1"I don't know for sure but my guess is the "in sets" year lines were added after the page was created and the member who added them decided that BP. was the "correct" mint mark and used that instead of following what already existed on all the other year lines. One would hope that the referee who validated the change request would have fixed the inconsistency but probably didn't even notice. That's one of the problem with catalogs such as this, no consistent oversight.
Your grammar was fine.
To be honest, I didn't even notice the period after the BP in the "in sets" year lines until you pointed it out. In my opinion, even if some of the coins had a period after BP and some did not, that should be discussed in the comments or the year line comments. The actual mint mark is BP and that's what should be put in the "mint letter" column on the year line. It should be as defined on the coin page which shows it like this:
