In my opinion, the "In sets only" remark makes sense only for coins or years of issue which were minted in small numbers to include in year sets so that the set would be without gaps. In your case, the Dutch 1992 issues were minted in large numbers for circulation, so according to my (strict) definition, these would not be 'set-only' issues.
I've always found the "In sets only" remark very confusing. Numista abounds with pages with coins which are both struck for circulation, but at the same time have an additional "In sets only" line (example
here). That's contradictory, I would say. Perhaps it is meant to say that the number of the particular line is the number of sets issued with this coin in it. In that case, a more simple remark "In sets" would be far less ambiguous. It would add a lot of clarity if Numista also had entries for official mint sets, so we would not have to mix set-issue coins among the regular issues, but I'm entering dangerous area now.
If you toggle a page with "In sets only" remarks to French, you will find that the corresponding French lines have the remark "BU". This stands for "Brillant Universal" which according to the French definition (see
here), just means that it is a normal Uncirculated coin with full lustre retained. This is a fundamentally different way to describe the same coins. For the French, there appears to be no relation to sets. I think it is not desirable that the English and French communities should diverge about this to such an extent. It may easily lead to misunderstandings during swaps.
"BU" can also be found on anglophone Numista pages, where it stands for "Brilliant Uncirculated". At least according to some members (example
here), BU coins are struck on polished blancs, and I duly hope that there is evidence for that.
To summarize, I would:
- reserve the "In sets only" label for coins or years of issue which are encountered in sets only, or, if spotted at large, can only be traced back to broken up sets
- definitely add additional lines for BU if the manufacturer states that the process of production is indeed different from the regular strikes, but not otherwise. Brilliant or non-brilliant state of conservation of identically produced coins does not deserve an additional type line, but an additional grade column.
- add additional lines for set issues among regular strikes only on the basis of officially reported mint sets, and only if, which is current practice, there is no other way in Numista to administer mint sets. And I would label these lines as "In sets".
Akadotour, it wasn't my plan to hijack your thread, and I'm sorry if it would, but I would rather like the community to think over the consequences of creating lines for coins in sets and how to label them.
