I think that it would be more correct to split the 2 Zloty Y#80 and 5 Zloty Y#81 from Poland into two separate distinct coin types the way they are divided in the Krause catalog. The reason for this is that Y#80.1 and Y#80.2 e.g. are percieved as two rather different naked-eye-noticebale coin types (the second one is being "Redesigned eagle on the obverse). The same is with 5 Zloty, e.g. Y#81.1 features a small eagle and large legend unlike Y#81.2
So I think for consistency reason it is better to have two separate coin type entries for both 2 and 5 Zloty respectively. This way the coin catalog will be more accurate in regard for those collectors who collect only coin types and not by date. Because marking e.g. Y#80.1 and Y#80.2 as the coins which you have in your collection within the single coin type entry as it is now results in inaccurate statistics on the Dashboard stating that you have not two separate coin types in your collection but rather two different-dated coins of the same coin type. And this is not true in this case.
Coin types are generalizations but when such distinct differences as the above mentioned are strobing your naked eye - it is not the way to organize the catalog!
Actually, we could also split 50 Groszy Y#48.1 and Y#48.2 and 1 Zloty Y#49.1 and Y#49.2 as well. As there is also noticable difference in obverse legend (large vs. small) and is easily recognizable with the naked eye! Also the following adds to the splitting logics: both variants of the two denominations did not circulate in parallel but rather in succession for a number of successive years, it is let us to say like evolution of the coin type, first the first type was in use for a period of time, then some mdifications to the design were made and the second design type began its circulation and so on. So the major emphasis here is the chronological evolution of the coin type. And it must be as the basis of definition of Numista coin types (merging and splitting Krause coin types). It is also would be justified because for example in the Ukraine coins in Numista we have such minor differences in design for 10 Kopeks as 5 or 6 small berries as two distinct coin types (KM# 1.1a and KM# 1.2 respectively) which is hardly visible and does not strike your eye as much as the design modifications in the above described Polish coins. Additionally these Ukrainian coin types were issued not in succession but rather in parallel - both of them are dated 1992. So it is then more about variants than distinct coin types.
To sum it up, I think that coin type definition must be based on the following major principles:
1) quite distinct visible to the naked eye design change (visible without using a magnifier or a microscope)
2) successive circulation not parallel
So based on all this talk I just suggest that 50 Groszy, 1 Zloty, 2 Zloty and 5 Zloty coin types get splitted into different Numista coin types.
According to Numista's convention about catalog numbering, all coins of one type (such as Y#48) should all be on one page, completely separate from other types (such as Y#49). Subtypes (such as Y#48.1 and Y48.2) should be combined onto one page. In this manner, Numista defers the decision to the catalog editors.
Y80 and Y81 should have separate pages here, since they are different catalog types. Y48.1 and Y48.2 should be combined on one page, since they are only subtypes.
However, Numista has not been very consistent about this convention. I defer to the admin team and catalog referees on this issue.
So time has passed and so far no definitive solution to the issue from the moderators' side has been provided? Who is responsible for moderation of Ukraine and Poland? It's high time that we do that and get the ball rolling!!!
