In Siegs catalog and DNF it is as two different notes while DOP and SCWPM as the same with slight differences.
I think, since there are other notes wich are split due to the watermark, it should be split two. The differnce can still be told by the year, if anyone doesn't have the note at hand.
The other notes split by watermark are different notes according to all above used referances though.
I have a soft spot for origami paper cranes.
Read or watch about "Sadako Sasaki and the Thousand Paper Cranes".
Spread a little peace and happiness wherever you go :)
I agree - a watermark difference is not sufficient to split a listing.
We have this with some of the Finnish notes, for example, of series 1909, and again of series 1963 where the watermarks vary. I went with what the Finnish catalogues did, and leave them as a single entry with the difference mentioned, and illustrated with an image if possible.
The tendency to have every banknote of a design and imprint on a single page seriously Hurts the potential of this site being as scholarly and widely used by experts as I would want this page to be. I dislike that different imprints and lathework are all lumped together also.
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
In considering this, I go by precedent with the banknotes I know well, with what the collecting community and indigenous catalogues go with. Finland is a good example for me - it is not split by watermark, but I collect the different watermarks.
Perhaps a thread should be opened on whether or not to split by watermark, and see what members at large think about it.
Based on how the Danish and Faroese catalog was set up, when I became a referee, major differences should probably be split. Like is it a compass or flower.
If it's a minor difference like size, they should stay together.
That's my personal opinion though, not Numista's.
I belive Numista don't care for splitting watermarks differences..?
I have a soft spot for origami paper cranes.
Read or watch about "Sadako Sasaki and the Thousand Paper Cranes".
Spread a little peace and happiness wherever you go :)
I belive Numista don't care for splitting watermarks differences..?
I have not split the banknotes of Finland for this reason. collecting watermark differences is quite a niche corner of banknote collecting.
There are quite a few watermark variations among Finnish notes, some of which are very rare - we would end up with a split entry and no illustration of an obscure variety for some of these. They should go in the watermark description field, imo. What I will add in time for Finland is an illustration of each watermark in the watermark picture field, when images are available - a little bit of Photoshop work will be needed to join images and add description to them.
I would vote against spliting by watermark. There are quite a few German banknotes that have very many vatieties of watermarks and even on crisp notes these are not always very easy to distinguish, let alone if they have been circulated.
I do however think they should have separate lines, so not only being mentioned in the comment section.
Just call me Bram
No new swaps for the moment, still too many half-ongoing swaps to clean up!
I would vote against spliting by watermark. There are quite a few German banknotes that have very many vatieties of watermarks and even on crip notes these are not always very easy to distinguish, let alone if they have been circulated.
I do however think they should have separate lines, so not only being mentioned in the comment section.
Good idea. Separate lines in addition to the watermark comments section would be a very good means to let members distinguish their notes.
