I just got this coin in a swap and saw this in numista
Each year line has a description of the format of the date. None of the year lines are doubled, so no coins are variants! Then why have those comments in the year lines, since I don't need to look at anything else, than the year itself, to know which year I have in hand.
I suggest to get rid of useless year line comments, or only show them in the comments section (eventually).
They don't bring anything, which is different from the year itself. Waste of space and time.
If the person, who did that, thought they should ALL have different km#, then he should have argued for that in the forum, but not just with a strange CR.
I find that information useful in the mintage line – although it is more interesting when a style is used for several years and then changes. It's nice to have all the information about the years in one ordered list instead of some in the mintage lines and the rest scattered through text and image comments.
Why is it a problem if information useful to some people is present in the mintage line comments?
OK, please explain how that information can help you?
I am interested in how coin types vary from year to year and over time, and this shows the information well.
If I get one example of a year the information can help me whether what I have is standard for the year or a previously undocumented year variant.
Both of those can situations be be handled by the comment section, but putting the information in the mintage line comments makes the information more obvious and easier to understand in many cases. It would also be possible to have the list in the mintage lines, and another almost identical list in the comments section with more information, but why have two lists when one can have all the information?
(That is, when the information is as shown in the example or shorter. If each mintage line needs several sentences to explain it wouldn't be appropriate to put it in the mintage line comments.)
bjherbisonIt would also be possible to have the list in the mintage lines, and another almost identical list in the comments section with more information, but why have two lists when one can have all the information?
In this case the information in the year line is (to me, maybe not you) useless without the picture in the comments that show what the date actually looks like for each year. I think deleting the picture and keeping the year line comments conveys less information. (To me) the picture in the comments is absolutely necessary, the year line comments aren't.
We planned a new feature allowing images in yearlines :-)
OMG, really? You would the never see the year lines, because cluttered with images. What an idea, you have the comment section for that. In the year line just add a small “see comments section” and everything is fine? That's how we already it today!
Unfortunately you're right, but basically it doesn't change anything, they are overloaded with not needed information! Maybe one should interpret the GL intelligently?
Record further details specific to individual lines in the comments field:
the date in the local script for coins issued in multiple years
Do not record comments that apply to all the lines. Record these in the generic comments field instead.
I think the second could be interpreted in the other direction - If the comments are in the generic comment field do not record them on the year lines too.
Second one is made to avoid copy pasted exact sale info in all yearlines.
The current situation where each variety is described in general comments is from my perspective just coming from the fact we cannot yet attach photos to yearlines.
Makes sense to me to have yearline description in the field “comment” of yearlines, whereas general comments are supposed to give extra info about the global type itself.
Anyhow, I do not understand how it would bring value to remove those yearlines comments.
