2001 Peru 1 Nuevo Sol Sociedad Numismática del Perú Mintage (2nd) [opgelost]

Greetings,

Modified the catalog for https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces48305.html.

The note in the comments section referred to a vague, unverifiable, and misleading coinage quantity.

These are the front and back images of a COA in my possession for the 50th Anniversary of the Numismatic Society of Peru:


This COA proves that, at a minimum, 668 of these coins had been pressed.

This metered coinage number is congruous with Page 23 of MONEDAS CONMEMORATIVAS at http://www.bcrp.gob.pe/docs/Billetes-Monedas/Cono-Monetario/Monedas-Conmemorativas.pdf which lists the maximum coinage at exactly 1,000 pieces.

The quantity of 668 is not very different from the maximum quantity of 1,000, so that we may dispense with "...the actual amount minted was much lower" language in the comments section.

Indeed, the Banco Central de Reserva del Perú still sells the coin online, and, 18 years after the first of the coin was pressed, the Lima mint appears to have every intention of reaching the maximum mintage:
https://tiendavirtual.bcrp.gob.pe/tiendabcrp/monedas-conmemorativas/140-quincuagesimo-aniversario-de-la-sociedad-numismatica-del-peru.html

Additional pressings of this coin are now available from the mint through national wholesalers. My COA's and coins were shipped from axcitos78 in Peru August 30th and arrived October 4th.

Previously, I had reported on August 30th that the coin was temporarily back ordered (e.g. additional pressings of the coin might be forthcoming):
https://web.archive.org/web/20190830153537/https://tiendavirtual.bcrp.gob.pe/tiendabcrp/monedas-conmemorativas/140-quincuagesimo-aniversario-de-la-sociedad-numismatica-del-peru.html

I did not have these COA's in my possession to refute the 350 coinage number that mysteriously appeared in the specification sheet when I checked on August 30th.

Now I do.

I have deleted the misleading comment.

Attentively,

Well, I would not call the comment misleading. The word 'Much' is subjective, implying a large amount lower than the actual amount. If we can confirm at least 668 coins have been minted, that means 67 percent of the original maximum can be confirmed. In my eyes, that is not close to 100 percent, but again, it is subjective.

I submitted a request to add a comment saying 1,000 is the maximum, but I neglected any subjective terms. I still see the fact that this mintage is just a maximum to be important.

Hello both of you,
On 2019-09-03, Sulfur ask me to do a modification and I did it. Then on 2019-12-09, Bears4Hire justify the removal of this modification and yesterday, Sulfur ask again for the first modification.
Could you please, find an agreement here.
Many thanks,
Have a good day,

The original comment was:
The maximum mintage for this type was 1,000; however, the actual amount minted was much lower.

The new comment I propose is:
This piece has a maximum mintage of 1,000.

If Bears4Hire finds the first comment too vague or misleading, I think the second comment removes any of that.

I also think including a comment saying the mintage is only a maximum is necessary because we cannot confirm the maximum has been reached. That is probably why, if the mintage is a maximum, any other catalogue will include a reference to it. And I see no need to withhold that information.

If everybody is ok, then ok. I choosed to do it on the forum for transparence reasons.
Best regards and thanks for your help for the catalog.