Coin set variations

Hi to all!

I have received a question regarding the set variants. Yugoslav bank issued same coin sets in different variations. This may for sure be also present in other countries. 

I have searched here https://en.numista.com/help/search.php?q=coin+set and I cannot find clear instructions how to approach this matter. 

Do we accept coin set cases, as described below as a separate sets or is there a plan to upgrade Numista in way, that more set variations can be added on single page? Latter option would clearly be more elegant.

Cases: 

1. FAO set with Yugoslav and English description

2. Same 1985 set in brown and blue color (green also exists)

3. Different coin placement (one to ten and ten to one)

Thank you.

 Three separate pages is my suggestion. 

They look different, and if it comes a time to swap such a set, 

then if all on one page there is a chance the wrong set may be sent. 

 Add also links between the sets to each page. 

The position of the coins is simply due to wrong or variable insertion of the inner sleeve I would not see this as a valid reason for another set entry.

I see this as similar to a year line on a coin page.

This way there would be no issue with swaps.

Idolenz

The position of the coins is simply due to wrong or variable insertion of the inner sleeve I would not see this as a valid reason for another set entry.

Hi, in this case it is not variable insertion. Pockets are in different sizes and are mirrored. It is not possible just to reorder the coins.

That's what I mean someone in the factory inserted the pocket “wrong”. That's the only difference, it could be easily changeable by removing the insert, flip it and putting it back. I wouldn't use the communist quality control as a reason for unnecessary duplications for sets.

It could be put as a comment in the set's description box that both orientations might occur.

Idolenz

That's what I mean someone in the factory inserted the pocket “wrong”. That's the only difference, it could be easily changeable by removing the insert, flip it and putting it back. I wouldn't use the communist quality control as a reason for unnecessary duplications for sets.

 

It could be put as a comment in the set's description box that both orientations might occur.

The insert cannot be removed because everything is glued. The last set in the post above is much rarer then the other one, and in some catalogues these are listed as different sets.

In my oppinion this two sets are different variants. 

Soviet sets have the same “problem”.

https://en.numista.com/forum/topic166197.html

Hungarian foiled sets also have such problem, but to a lesser extent.

Regarding your question, I view them as variations of the same set, because the packaging is not drastically different (for example softcover-hardcover would be a very different packaging) and the contents are the same. Having “yearlines” (or rather typelines) would be a great solution. But for now, since we don't those, I just mark such variations in the comments:

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/set.php?id=2486

Idolenz

That's what I mean someone in the factory inserted the pocket “wrong”. That's the only difference, it could be easily changeable by removing the insert, flip it and putting it back. I wouldn't use the communist quality control as a reason for unnecessary duplications for sets.

 

It could be put as a comment in the set's description box that both orientations might occur.

Please amend your text, it is pretty inappropriate.

I have countless first hand experiences of communistic QA/QC …  so no, it's on topic. Also what use would changing my text have if it was already quoted multiple times?

Not to get this out of hand but are you for real a communism apologist in a forum about money? 🤔

Ma9nWaRr10

Soviet sets have the same “problem”.

https://en.numista.com/forum/topic166197.html

Hungarian foiled sets also have such problem, but to a lesser extent.

 

Regarding your question, I view them as variations of the same set, because the packaging is not drastically different (for example softcover-hardcover would be a very different packaging) and the contents are the same. Having “yearlines” (or rather typelines) would be a great solution. But for now, since we don't those, I just mark such variations in the comments:

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/set.php?id=2486

Thank you for the links. I understand what you are saying. It would be nice to have “typelines” for swapping. I am collecting sets and this would be useful to me. 

What about first example where there is same set with certificates in different languages?

What about second example with same sets in different colours?

Debolestis

Ma9nWaRr10

Soviet sets have the same “problem”.

https://en.numista.com/forum/topic166197.html

Hungarian foiled sets also have such problem, but to a lesser extent.

 

Regarding your question, I view them as variations of the same set, because the packaging is not drastically different (for example softcover-hardcover would be a very different packaging) and the contents are the same. Having “yearlines” (or rather typelines) would be a great solution. But for now, since we don't those, I just mark such variations in the comments:

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/set.php?id=2486

Thank you for the links. I understand what you are saying. It would be nice to have “typelines” for swapping. I am collecting sets and this would be useful to me. 

What about first example where there is same set with certificates in different languages?

What about second example with same sets in different colours?

Imho, the CoA, description, etc being in different different languages is no ground to separate the sets, as long as the information is the same. It should just be marked in comments. (https://en.numista.com/catalogue/set.php?id=809)

Different color is a more difficult question. If “typelines” are introduced I think they should definitely be considered as one set, just two variations of it. But how to treat them now I am not sure.

As you can see I am not a fan of separating sets over small changes. Essentially, I believe, the separation should happen in these situations:

1) Year. (Obviously. Different year - different set.)

2) INTENTIONAL change of content. (I don't think that a coin missing from 0.5% of sets due to poor quality control is a ground to consider it a different set. Similar to how error coins are not allowed on Numista. Same for different coin placements, and other errors)

3) Significant intentional changes of the design.

Like here: 

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/set.php?id=783

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/set.php?id=779

Or if the sets were issued to commemorate different events: (grouped with design change because it happens here)

https://forintportal.hu/forgalmisorok/disztokos-forgalmi-sor-2023_bu_budapest-150-eves.php#ugrik

https://forintportal.hu/forgalmisorok/disztokos-forgalmi-sor-2023_bu_lamfalussy-lectures-conference.php#ugrik

And as I previously mentioned just change of color is not significant enough (at least for me).

I hold the same views about coins too. I am advocating to stop separation of coin types based on small changes, like different edge and orientation.

But it was just my humble opinion.

I listed this New Zealand Set >>> https://en.numista.com/catalogue/set.php?id=2453

It is just a normal BU 1983 NZ Set of 7 Coins, 6 Circulation examples and a Commemorative $1.

I have also got an error set that has two 50 cent coins and no 20 cent coin.

I just mentioned it with pictures in the comments.

No need to create a separate page for it.

Regards Mike