Between 1987 and 2016, Bolivia issue 10 series of very similar notes (letters A-J) which can be grouped as follows: A-C: Without see-through optical device or marks for the sight-impaired. D-E: With see-through optical device but without marks for the sight-impaired. F-H: With see-through optical device and marks for the sight-impaired, microprinting "Republica de Bolivia" I-J: With see-through optical device and marks for the sight-impaired, microprinting "Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia"
Unfortunately, Pick has made a mess of these notes, with the following table showing all the catalogue numbers assigned
When the Bolivian notes were originally added to Numista, they were put into the four groups describe above but, unfortunately, the 20 bolivianos notes were later rearranged to follow the catalogue, thus grouping series A, B and E (P#205) and splitting up the other series despite the similarities discussed above. To fix this, can I request the following? Series E from this note https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note205363.html be moved to https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note205891.html which will then contain both Series D and E.
This note https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note234282.html be merged with the remaining notes in https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note205363.html so that this entry contains Series A, B and C.
These three notes https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note234883.html, https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note234884.html and https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note202837.html be merged into a single entry containing Series F, G and H.
These two notes https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note205892.html and https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note234887.html be merged into a single entry containing Series I and J.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
They basically follow the same divisions you gave, only the last page combines the different microprintings.
When it comes to banknotes, there is such thing as minor text changes--we do not split pages based on signature titles or printer names changing, after all. When it comes to microprintings, this is text that is difficult to see without optical enchancements, and so notes with different microprintings do look basically identical.
(And if we did split based on different microprintings, I imagine any arguments there could be used on whether or not we split by different watermarks as well, which is still debatable.)
Status gewijzigd naar Klaar(Sulfur, 18-aug-2021, 19:25)
Many thanks for working on this but I'm afraid you've missed the significance of the microprinting in this case. Series I and J were issued after the title of the country changed from "Republic" to "Plurinational State". This is only visible in the microprinting. Ordinarily I'd agree that changes in microprinting don't warrant a separate page but this is an exception. All the other denominations are split between series F-H and I-J, so it would make sense for the 20 bolivianos to follow suit. Perhaps we should get some images of the microprinting to make this clear?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Citeer: "ceh2019"This is only visible in the microprinting. Ordinarily I'd agree that changes in microprinting don't warrant a separate page but this is an exception.
I understand the significance of the change in the microprinting; however, I do not think this deserves an exception.
Microprinting neither part of the design nor a major form of text--it is merely there as a security feature. And when it comes to security features, I believe we would need some individualized guidelines on every type, and try to keep everything security-feature-related consistent across the catalogue (so in this case, we would either never split changes in mircoprintings or always split changes in microprintings).
For example, if we were talking about a UV change of the country's name, I would definitely think not to split the pages because UV is invisible light--if we cannot see it in regular light, I do not think it should get its own page. The feature and any changes in it should definitely be documented, but a split in the page would confuse more than it would help.
And with microprinting needing optical enhancements to see, I think changes in microprinting should not deserve their own pages, regardless of what it says. With that being said, we would definitely need pictures--just in the comments section.
I will send requests to merge the other pages though, to make them all consistent.
As promised, some images, Series G on the left, series J on the right.
The microprinting is below "BANCO CENTRAL DE BOLIVIA" and can just about be seen in these rather low quality images. However, there's another difference I hadn't spotted before. Look at the arms next to "10". They are quite distinct, with the earlier arms having a light condor and rather indistinct flags whilst the later arms have a dark condor and much more distinct flags. I don't yet know if these are just stylistic changes or linked to the establishment of the "Plurinational State", more research will be required.
On their own, each change is small and would probably not be enough to generate a split but, put together with the political change, they add up. At the very least, lets see if anyone else has an opinion on this before any more changes are implemented.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Citeer: "ceh2019"The microprinting is below "BANCO CENTRAL DE BOLIVIA" and can just about be seen in these rather low quality images.
For the first picture, I can barely make out the text when I zoom in a substantial amount. For the second picture, it is slightly blury, and so I cannot make out the lettering even if I zoom in as much as I can.
Again: we would still benefit from pictures on the page; however, this change is not visible without optical enhancements, so it is not enough to warrant a split.
Citeer: "ceh2019"On their own, each change is small and would probably not be enough to generate a split but, put together with the political change, they add up.
If there are ten changes that, on their own, would not be enough to warrant a split, then a note combining all ten of those changes would still not be enough to warrant a split (because then what counts as "enough" would be subjective, and we would likely have many additional pages for when a printer changes).
Bolivia did modify their coat of arms in 2004, although I do not see that as being necessarily major--while there are differences, it looks like they just redrew the existing one, keeping all elements that exist in the previous one (and these modifications had no correlation with the establishment of the new Plurinational State).
With the coat of arms being so similar, this reminds me of the thread about Peru, where there was support for keeping the slight changes on the same page, with the differences being documented in the comments section. That seems like a good solution here too.
By optical enhancements, what do you mean? The difference is in the microprinting is visible to the naked eye. The problem is taking a photograph with sufficient resolution. A better image of the microprinting can be seen here. For the arms, the differences are far more clear. This isn't just a redrawing, several elements are different (see here for a description of the changes), most notably on the notes in the colour of the condor and the absence of rays from the sun. You're right that the change in arms pre-dates the establishment of the "Plurinational State" but it was only on series I that the change in arms was implemented, the same series that saw the change in the state's title.
Sometimes small changes are just that, a minor alteration of no great significance. Other times they are indicators of wider changes. This case clearly falls into the latter category. I could quote numerous examples where smaller changes than this are used to divide pages. I don't think all are appropriate but when there is a change in ruling authority and a change in design, that warrants separation.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
By optical enhancements, I mean anything other than looking at a note in regular conditions (perhaps it is not the right words to describe every type of security feature--specifically microprinting--but I am not sure how else to describe it; microprinting is not necessarily meant to be seen or contribute to the banknote's design as it is there for security reasons).
And regarding the coat of arms: not even the coins split the pages for the different varieties (example), so this is considered minor on that side as well.
I am still not convinced, and I do not think we are going to come to an agreement on this...
I hadn't got round to checking the coins for this change. Thanks for pointing this out. They really should be split, since the difference is in the only device on them.
Since we are in opposition on the question of the notes, I suggest that we look for others to contribute so we can get an idea of what they want. In particular, the referee for Bolivia should really be involved in this decision.
Clearly, if these pages are combined, we will ensure that the differences are well documented within the combined pages, so no information will be lost. What will be lost is the ability to select one type and not the other in a wish list. Since I only have some of these notes, that's personally why I want to see the splits maintained.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Citeer: "ceh2019"In particular, the referee for Bolivia should really be involved in this decision.
They were involved--I messaged the referee before I did anything to the pages in question, and they agreed with my opinion.
If the biggest problem for you is the inability to to select the changes as part of ypur wish list, then you are not alone--on the coin side, there are some people who collect by KM, and I have seen that as an argument against merging identical coins with different references. But that is not something we can really get around--it is a limitation in the coding that should not technically effect the catalogue (like how we only have spots for five references).
Perhaps you should make a suggestion where, if you own one particular type, you can then mark individual year-lines as being on your wish list--that way, if you view the change in microprinting as major, you would be able to completely select one variety as being on your wish list even if it is on the same page as the one you have.
I've asked Xavier about wish lists extending to individual years but it seems not to be possible.
This kind of discussion will inevitably go on for many types. For me, the distinct arms, change in microprinting and the political change suffice and I suspect that, if Pick weren't so focussed on printers and actually looked at the notes they're cataloguing, they'd have given series I and J separate numbers. As it is, Pick's arrangement of Bolivia's note is a mess which we've unpicked and put back together in a logical fashion. I'd prefer all four types to be on separate pages for the reasons I've mentioned but at least I now know about the change in the arms and can set about finding the pieces I'm missing, so the discussion is far from a dead loss for me.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Citeer
And regarding the coat of arms: not even the coins split the pages for the different varieties (example), so this is considered minor on that side as well.
This is a very good example where several small changes add up. So far it seems that only the 10 lei note has been split. Have divisions of the other noted been requested?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
