Please move owners, due to duplicated banknote. [opgelost]

Hello, I need owners from this note be moved to year 2003 of this note, and then delete the first one.

Thanks in advance.

I don't agree. The changes between KM#220a (2000) and KM#220b (2003) are significant enough to retain separate pages, see them both here. The problem is that the same image has been used for both entries, leading to 2003 being added to KM#220a. I suggest removing the 2003 line from this page and moving members to this page, together with getting the correct image for KM#220a (2000).

Citeer: "ceh2019"​I don't agree. The changes between KM#220a (2000) and KM#220b (2003) are significant enough to retain separate pages, see them both here. The problem is that the same image has been used for both entries, lading to 2003 being added to KM#220a. I suggest removing the 2003 line from this page and moving members to this page, together with getting the correct image for KM#220a (2000).

​I think I'm fairly good playing "Find the differences", but in this case, out of different size of diamond, and a missing guilloche, I can't find other significant differences.

Again, the question is about how to decide what is a variant and what makes a different note.

On one side, is the obvious decision of issuer to make a new batch of the same note, this is being the main elements the same (same person shown, in same picture; same basic color; basically same text); and also with same distribution of them (pictures in same position, face value, guilloches, issuer name, etc.). I feel this would make them all just the same note.

Now variants: when there are small different details, like small variation of size of an element, slight typography differences (same type of letter, with bold or narrow trace, with or without serifs, different or without security features, like inserted thread; they would be variants for me. In resume, when you need to inspect the notes, and compare them to find the differences, they would be the same note, with variants. If there are notorious differences, like very different size of pictures or note, different color, or anything that would let you know is a different one, then yes, this should be different notes.

If we stick to very small differences we are in risk to fraction too much the catalog, and in an extreme case, we could split for different years, series, different signature sets, or just by serial numbers, which does not make sense; note on the K catalog, where most times they make different notes, just cause are different printers, even if the general design is the same.

I am not against some split, like when an issuer design a new note, with same design and layout, but with different currency; when they are issued based on a different law, and of course, when the distribution of elements is changed. I only would like to have a guideline telling how to decide when differences are enough to make a new note, instead of a variant.

It's important that we look at the whole series of 5000 guaranies notes (not all of which are currently listed in Numista).
The first broad type has "5000" to the left and the arms in the centre. P#202 (1963) has Spanish text on the reverse (this is missing from Numista), whilst P#208 (1982-1994) and P#215 (1997) have Guarani text on the reverse. The only difference between P#208 and P#215 is the addition of a windowed thread.
The second broad type has a large "5000" in the centre. P#220a (2000) has symmetric borders left and right and a small diamond in the bottom left, whilst P#220b (2003) has a different border on the left (the missing guilloche) and a large diamond. Both can seen here.
The third broad type has a small "5000" in the centre. P#223a (2005) has a narrow thread and a tall diamond bottom left, whilst P#223b & c (2008-2010) have a broad thread and a shorter diamond. These can all be seen here. Numista currently ignores these clear differences.
As is so often the case, P#s can't be relied upon, since they change for small differences and ignore others of a similar nature or greater. By the argument set out above, many more of these notes could be combined, certainly all of the second and third broad types I have described. However, if there is a clear change in design, even if it only affects one corner of a note, I suspect most collectors will want that difference made clear by having a separate page. Otherwise, there won't be an image for them to decide whether they consider it distinct or not, as is currently the case for P#223.
If P#220a and P#220b are merged, then images of whichever does not appear in the main image must be provided in the comments to allow members to make up their own minds. Of course, if we do that, we may as well keep the separate entries, which would be my clear preference, along with splitting P#223.

I am convinced that changed design elements deserve their own page, if for nothing more than we could in theory illustrate it with the different images. I think we render Numista unusable to a member of the public when they come here and can't find their note that looks different then the illustration....

Citeer: "Oklahoman"​I am convinced that changed design elements deserve their own page, if for nothing more than we could in theory illustrate it with the different images. I think we render Numista unusable to a member of the public when they come here and can't find their note that looks different then the illustration....

​I think we need to define how small or big must be the differences to decide whether split pages or not. It is a matter of balance:
One one hand you have the collector who want to have all the varieties, even if they are subtle. They would like to have many pages, even if catalog numbers are the same.
And on the other hand there is the collector who wants to have one sample of each of the main design. Split of pages would be a pain for them, when he browse catalog, and make a search for what is missing, will have many "nearly identical" notes, so he needs to check what of them they have. Also, usually these are the newer collectors, who may find difficult to identify the variant they have, or what is missing. It is common that the collectors expand their targets while they learn and understand more of the different varieties. Maybe it is better to group pages, and show the differences of each variety. This makes easier to new collector to find and understand the differences, and does not complicate things to advanced collector, who usually is aware of the differences.

Again, we would need to define what are the differences that make variants or separate notes.

If there was a great way to show images of each variety I would maybe have to consider it...

Citeer: "Oklahoman"​If there was a great way to show images of each variety I would maybe have to consider it...

​Not sure if it is "a great way", but adding details of available pictures, and respective description would be a good way to do it. Of course, it needs the commitment of referee and/or members to make it complete.

I have done something like that on coins section, adding to all the pages related of the varieties, so users can know what the differences are. On notes section, usually is easier to find the needed pictures than on coins.

Doing so, there is not a great issue to split or group pages, as users will find the needed information on each of them.

Both pages has the same picture, so for the moment it's impossible to tell the difference.

The differences between 2000 and 2003 can be seen here.

Citeer: "ceh2019"​The differences between 2000 and 2003 can be seen here.

​If it's just the diamond, it's a truly minor change. Then the change of year is more prominent difference.

It's a bit more than "just" the diamond. On the 2003 note, the panel to the left of the diamond is missing and the larger diamond is surrounded by a border.

Citeer: "ceh2019"​It's a bit more than "just" the diamond. On the 2003 note, the panel to the left of the diamond is missing and the larger diamond is surrounded by a border.
​

​Yeah, nah.