Banknotes watermark and splitting pages

Hello,

I noticed a guideline stating that a banknote with a changed watermark requires splitting the page into two. I'm in favor of not splitting the page—especially since this rule doesn’t apply to changes in the security thread, which may be even more visible than the watermark.

I came across several discussions on this topic in the forum, but I haven’t found a clear explanation for the rationale behind the watermark rule. Personally, I believe watermark changes could be addressed by simply adding a separate line under the same page, similar to how we handle minor variations, rather than creating a completely new page.

This rule would affect a number of Egyptian banknote pages, so I anticipate some questions from the community. Could you please clarify the reasoning behind this approach?

Thank you in advance!

Unless change is quite obvious I am against splitting of pages and then, especially with relatively small or non-obvious differences, they have to be pointed out in the title for fast recognition.

I utterly hate it every time I have to play spot-the-difference on Numista sometimes with three or four+ pages I have to quickly jump between to catch the differences (often hidden behind obscure reference numbers from catalogs only a little shadow cabal seems to own).

Idolenz

Unless change is quite obvious I am against splitting of pages and then, especially with relatively small or non-obvious differences, they have to be pointed out in the title for fast recognition.

I utterly hate it every time I have to play spot-the-difference on Numista sometimes with three or four+ pages I have to quickly jump between to catch the differences (often hidden behind obscure reference numbers from catalogs only a little shadow cabal seems to own).

I totally agree, and to my understanding that's why when the security thread changes we do not split the pages, my question is why do we split them for the watermarks !

If anyone knows a topic in the forum that already discuss this point and give explanation on why,  please refer me to it. 

I would tend to agree with you Dr_Teek to not split pages because of watermarks. One addit page I’ll point out is Cambodia P-58. N#201752

All three a,b and c have different watermarks and no mention of this here or in banknote museum. It would seem pointless to split this to 3 pages. 
In the stamp collecting world, watermarks don’t change a number unless it’s a different printer, although I think there are some exceptions. This brings me to a point to make. There is no consistency in any catalog it seems. For every generality there is always exceptions. Actual consistency would help more than anything. 
 

My idea would be to not split pages or numbers for security features, and date and signature changes. Pages or Numbers should be changed for design changes and printer changes. Some examples: 1) Thailand P-35, P-36 and P-37 should have gotten new numbers when the security warning on the back was changed and 2) USA $1 bills from 1963 should all have the same pick number (Although here on Numista, they are on the same page. 👍)

Consistency is the one thing that should be followed when creating a catalog.

Maybe it can be handled how the page looks now:

1000 Riels - Cambodia – Numista

One watermark image, composed of the various versions.

odd job

Maybe it can be handled how the page looks now:

 

1000 Riels - Cambodia – Numista

 

One watermark image, composed of the various versions.

That would be a good way to handle it.

I agree against splitting a page for watermark variations.

odd job

One watermark image, composed of the various versions.

This only works fine if the source for all pictures is the same.

There should simply be the possibility to add additional picture slots.