colorized - same page or not?

Small request for clarification as I did not find anything in the forum and the guidelines are not fully clear.

N#305849 

contains a line for a proof colorized version

For the Canada colorized coins separate pages have been created.

How do we interpret the Guidelines here? “Coloured” is used as a technique in our catalogue, so do we keep them together with this rule: "Different minting processes (proof strikes, polished dies, etc.)".

So for now small inconsistency in our catalogue that needs solving.

The first part of that guidelines section says:

A coin type is defined by the physical properties and appearance:

• Metal composition, shape, diameter, and mass
• Devices (numismatic, heraldic, lettering, and design)

In my opinion a mint colorized coin isn't the same type based on that definition. My reasoning:

• The physical properties of the colored layer are different from the physical properties of the base metal.
• The appearance of a proof is roughly the same as the circulation issue, but a colorized coin has a significantly different appearance.
• The composition of the colorized coin is different from the non-colorized as the coloring element is not the same as the base metal.

Yes, it's a true. On different issuers there is a different approach and unfortunatelly there is more and more coloured coins now.

In the beginning of years '2000 Krauze catalogues listed usually only one coin and added both versions like different years, e.g. Alderney 2004 Km#43 coin which was in two versions (one was with one coloured soldier).

- 2004 plain

- 2004 partial colour (on some other coins it was “multicolour”).

Then, after few years, they started to list similar cases separately as km#xxx.1 and km#xxx.2, also even coloured was very small detail.

In my opinion, if the metal is the same, and no full plating but only partial part is paint on colour, this should be listed on one page with multiple types (like with years).

The same with coins with standard and with small gold gilded detail (not full plating).

With this approach could be one problem: what if coins are not engraved (or the same inscription engraved around) and main part is only different images print on flat surface? This is obviously the other coin, presenting something other but the difference is technically only on printing.

So for me it's ok that on some issuers, the referees have different approach, best suitable for their cases. Maybe not always 100% standarization is needed (but it could be something like “highly recommended”).

I don't think there is a reason to treat partial coloring differently from “full” coloring. In both cases a new material is being added.

(I don't remember seeing any mint-produced coloring that is really covered in “full”. And non-mint produced modifications belong in Exonumia.)

I think this case is very clear and quite simple, or at least that's how I see it: these two coins (for example) are clearly different

so each one should have its own separate page. Color (or lack thereof) is part of a coin's design, so if one is colored and the other is not, the design is different.

For the Costa Rican example, I was simply lazy when adding it to the catalog. If someone were to request an addition, I would be happy to approve.