Comments on Major New Circulation Sets of the 21st Century

[<k>]

Here is the "borderline" Syrian set from 2003, compared to 1996.

OK, let me quote from my own guidelines:

"Examples of changes I do NOT regard as major:

5] Cases where circulation coins are minted in cheaper alloys, even when the colour of some coins changes markedly.

9] Other minor detail changes, e.g. to a font, the re-positioning of legend letters, a slightly smaller or larger effigy than before, etc."

I would apply point 5] to the middle coin. OK, on the right-hand coin, we do not have a "slightly smaller or larger effigy", but the main design has been somewhat amended, though not majorly in my opinion. That really leaves only the left-hand coin, which undoubtedly looks significantly and majorly different. However, one significantly amended coin does not make a set. (Your support for the Syrian regime has been noted by MI6 and the CIA).

[andyg]

The holograms on the newer coins don't picture well at all.

[<k>]

Holograms are just a gimmick.

[andyg]

The size differential in the 5 and 10 pounds is also hard to tell from that scan, oh well, perhaps size is a gimmick as well?

[<k>]

The size differential in the 5 and 10 pounds is also hard to tell from that scan.

In the case of the 5 pounds, it's 0.1mm smaller in diameter, and 1mm in the case of the 10 pounds. Piddling small changes, all in all.

[<k>]

I've added a poll now, as a fun option for members to exercise a bit of democracy.

[<k>]

If I lose the vote, I will need a free Uruguay 2011 set as a consolation prize.   

In fact, I think I will make this an EU type vote, in which the voters have to keep voting until they give the right answer. 

[chrisild]

In fact, I think I will make this an EU type vote, in which the voters have to keep voting until they give the right answer. 

The EU only does that in selected corporation tax havens.

Oh, and ... voted No. However, a latent image is certainly not just a gimmick.

Christian

[andyg]

It is a borderline change to a set though! It's debateable as to whether it's more change than with New Zealand set in 2006, or Mexico 2008 which I think both fail also at rule 5.

[<k>]

It is a borderline change to a set though! It's debateable as to whether it's more change than with New Zealand set in 2006, or Mexico 2008 which I think both fail also at rule 5.

But New Zealand and Mexico had 3 coins significantly reduced in size. See point G] in the criteria. I originally wrote:


G] Three or more coins are being reduced in size and/or having their format changed.


To clarify, I have amended this to:

G] Three or more coins are being significantly reduced in size (by 10% of their diameter or more) and/or having their format changed.


If you scroll down this page, you'll see the old and new dimensions of the Mexican coins:

http://en.numista.com/catalogue/mexique-25.html

And I think all of us will be acquainted with the radical adjustments to the New Zealand coins.


Perhaps I should add a condition that any set with 3 coins or more that change colour and nothing else should also qualify. However, I think that is perhaps too common and would catch maybe too many sets, or at least ones that are beyond my knowledge or research capacity. There is a need to set some sensible limits to the topic, or else its contents would become too big and unmanageable.

I did at first think of including only new design series and first-time sets for new countries, but then I thought that many, like me, would have enjoyed the new Fiji and New Zealand sets and regarded them as significant. After that, it comes down to drawing a sensible line as to what is "significant" or else drowning the topic with trivia.

[andyg]

After that, it comes down to drawing a sensible line as to what is "significant" or else drowning the topic with trivia.

Quite true, but I can't think of any others to add...

[<k>]

Well, the poll has closed and we have a tie. In the meantime, andyg changed his opinion and decided that the Syrian set was borderline after all. So, those two results suggest that it does NOT belong in the "Major New Circulation Sets of the 21st Century". This is in keeping with my original view.

[andyg]

Well, the poll has closed and we have a tie. In the meantime, andyg changed his opinion and decided that the Syrian set was borderline after all. So, those two results suggest that it does NOT belong in the "Major New Circulation Sets of the 21st Century". This is in keeping with my original view.

er.... when did I say the Syrian coins weren't borderline based on your criteria?
Since you got a tie don't we have to vote again? (like in the EU )

[<k>]

It is a borderline change to a set though! It's debateable as to whether it's more change than with New Zealand set in 2006, or Mexico 2008 which I think both fail also at rule 5.

My response:

OK, let me quote from my own guidelines:

"Examples of changes I do NOT regard as major:

5] Cases where circulation coins are minted in cheaper alloys, even when the colour of some coins changes markedly.

9] Other minor detail changes, e.g. to a font, the re-positioning of legend letters, a slightly smaller or larger effigy than before, etc."

I would apply point 5] to the middle coin. OK, on the right-hand coin, we do not have a "slightly smaller or larger effigy", but the main design has been somewhat amended, though not majorly in my opinion. That really leaves only the left-hand coin, which undoubtedly looks significantly and majorly different. However, one significantly amended coin does not make a set.

Since we only had four people voting, of which two were presumably us, it seems we would have no interest in a second vote.

[ciscoins]

DPRK 2009: new design after the currency reform. Completely depreciated in a few months.