Personal notes in Czechoslovakia 100 crowns 1961 [Resolvido]

The article N#206529

has personal notes in mintage section.

It gives lines 

1961   0% P#91d; as a. Series prefix: B41-60 (dry printing)
1961   7% P#91e; as a. Series prefix: P (dry printing)
1961   1.6% P#91f; as a. Series prefix: R (dry printing)
1961  0.9% P#91g; as a. Series prefix: T (dry printing)
1961   0.9% P#91h; as a. Series prefix: Z (dry printing)
1961   4% P#91i; as a. Series prefix: X01-24 (dry printing)

Note. Obviously the percentage is from wrongly described occurrence of lines and has nothing to do with frequency as it expected to be. This is not the case of this topic and in this post  onwards this nonsense will be omitted. 

All of them looks are included completely in the description of the second line:

1961   33% P#91b; Series prefix: B41-99; P; R; T; Z; X01-24

Note. Obviously the percentage is from wrongly described occurrence of lines and has nothing to do with frequency as it expected to be. This is not the case of this topic and in this post  onwards this nonsense will be omitted. 

Can the catalog explain how to distinguish between the additional and original lines if not in the mintage section, than in the Comments?

Right now it is just a personal note on fields. 

I'd hoped that you would restrict yourself to coins but it seems not. This post makes no sense at all. If you can't communicate in reasonably good English then please don't bother.

ceh2019

I'd hoped that you would restrict yourself to coins but it seems not. This post makes no sense at all. If you can't communicate in reasonably good English then please don't bother.

He has some Exonumia in his collection as well. Just wait for it:)

There does seem to be an issue on the yearlines, at least if bank note museum is correct, as apparently b and c were split up in d to l (based on prefix letters). Judging by my own notes and the frequencies, the a/b/c yearlines were there first and later on the extra ones were added without removing the b/c that were duplicated. So either b and c need to be removed, or d to l.

I prefer the second option, as I would hate to see yearlines per prefix popping up all over the catalogue, creating overly long pages.

And unless anyone can describe this “dry printing”, and if it is in anyway a distinguishing feature between yearlines, it should be removed from the comments.

Also p#91c (or j, k, l) should get the date changed to “1961 (1990)”, as it has the 1961 date but was printed as from 1990.

Now all that makes sense. It's just a shame some one else has to “interpret” these ravings.

So what to do?

I suggest to remove the extra added yearlines per prefix and merge them with the general lines (a,b,c)

That would be a better way of organizing them but, if SCWPM has them split, we need to list those subtypes somehow and I'm not sure we can “recreate” b and c if they no-longer exist. I'd stick with the lines we have but we need to get to the bottom of what “dry printing” means. Is it possible to find out who added it?

ceh2019

That would be a better way of organizing them but, if SCWPM has them split, we need to list those subtypes somehow […]

There it is again. “Since SCWPM do that, we need to do it too.” No, we don't! We are not Krause, we are Numista. We do not have to follow Krause in every step and follow their nonsense and errors.

ngdawa

ceh2019

That would be a better way of organizing them but, if SCWPM has them split, we need to list those subtypes somehow […]

There it is again. “Since SCWPM do that, we need to do it too.” No, we don't! We are not Krause, we are Numista. We do not have to follow Krause in every step and follow their nonsense and errors.

The key word in my statement was “somehow”. We can't use P#91b and P#91c because they don't exist (anymore). As I see it, we have two options, keep the subtypes listed in SCWPM (removing the non-existent P#91b and P#91c) or merge the year lines into two, one for P#91a,d,e,f,g,h,i and the other for P#91j,k,l. Pick has created a mess and we have to report that mess whilst at the same time producing an accurate catalogue.

ceh2019

ngdawa

ceh2019

That would be a better way of organizing them but, if SCWPM has them split, we need to list those subtypes somehow […]

There it is again. “Since SCWPM do that, we need to do it too.” No, we don't! We are not Krause, we are Numista. We do not have to follow Krause in every step and follow their nonsense and errors.

The key word in my statement was “somehow”. We can't use P#91b and P#91c because they don't exist (anymore). As I see it, we have two options, keep the subtypes listed in SCWPM (removing the non-existent P#91b and P#91c) or merge the year lines into two, one for P#91a,d,e,f,g,h,i and the other for P#91j,k,l. Pick has created a mess and we have to report that mess whilst at the same time producing an accurate catalogue.

Agreed. The mess of SCWPM could me mebtioned in the Commes field. I'd say less is more. Each prefix should definitely not has its own line in the date lines. That would be insane. Some are 1961, some are 1990, these should obviously be separated. If there are any obvious varieties, these should be listed separately as well. All other, scetchy or questionable, varieties should not be listed until clear documentation can be provided. That's what I think, at least.