I agree. They are a mess. But will be less of a mess by getting rid of that 1980 to date listing. Serial number color changes, and changes of regular numbers with fancy ascending numbers are enough to justify their own pages. I will be able to look closer this weekend. I have all the notes in my collection.
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
If you have very similar entries that you can not combine for some reason they should be distinguished in the title. Like in the case of coins magnetic, non-magnetic etc.
Citação: "Idolenz"If you have very similar entries that you can not combine for some reason they should be distinguished in the title. Like in the case of coins magnetic, non-magnetic etc.
would indeed help, also to immediately see the one you need in the "see also" section
Just call me Bram
No new swaps for the moment, still too many half-ongoing swaps to clean up!
You have made a huge mistake. And to fix it, you should probably put everything as it was.
I have a fundamental disagreement with this idea that we should shove everything into as few listings as possible. An excuse I commonly hear on this site is that we should not be a slave to Krause.
Never do I hear that there must be a reason for why there are the different numbers there are.
But in this case, with all these notes of all these different catalog numbers in front of me, it is very clear why there are different catalog numbers.
Any change of imprint should be its own page.
Any changes in security features should be its own page.
Any changes in wording should be its own page
P# 68 abc are notes I own. ab have the visible De La Rue imprint. as does c. They all have silk fibers. only c has a lettered security strip. I have always thought that c should have a page seperate from ab because of this significant difference.
P# 71 has a visibly different imprint, of the Canadian Banknote Company. it features washed out colors in comparison to the tints on P# 68. It also has a lettered security thread like P# 68c. But the main reason is the significantly different guilloche engraving at the center of the note around the numeral 1. That alone warrants the page it should have alone. But there is more, turn the back over and look at the engraving in the bottom right hand corner. I refer to the vertically oriented rectangle that encompasses the 1. Completely different engravings, dimensions, and placement in terms of the digit 1.
P# 76 back to Thomas De La Rue with a visible imprint. The security strip has disappeared. The serial numbers are now fancy and ascending in a red color instead of the black. The central Guilloche engraving is different from P# 71, and Pick # 68, deserving of its own listing. And the back right hand lower corner has a completely different engraved corner digit one and rectangle in comparison to the 68 and the 71 type. So P# 76 should have its own type.
P# 79 Fancy serial...same color as previous type. Visible different imprint of Oberthur. Deserves its own page. central guilloche does resemble the previous type. The reverse bottom corner rectangle and digit 1 have yet again, another unique engraving. This deserves to be its own type.
P# 84 Canadian Bank note Imprint again. much fainter ascending serial, probably due to the ink having a fleurescent effect. face engraving to the left is different from engravings on the oberthure and de la rue types, especially in the lines of the foreground and the grove of trees to the right of the arms of the nation. No security thread. and again a different engraving on the back right hand lower corner rectangle and digit 1.
It is absurd that these were combined. It is double absured that I am a master ref as you are Sulfur and you chose not to consult me with this. It is triple absured that I have all these notes in front of me, and I seem to have the least impact on this decision.
Oh. I completely forgot to mention the change in color of the signatures on 68 and 71 from black to red on the 76,79, and 84. Yet another reason to have their own page.
But a damn bar added to the face gets P# 96 its own page? I agree it should get its own page, and I am glad you all did not know that I agreed, because it would probably be languishing in a dumpster of a listing with all other Krause numbers that you all have decided are irrelevent. Aaaaaaaan on the back, in the bottom right hand corner, the rectangle and the digit, different engravings.
I think this is a bad precedence for a number of reasons, but most importantly, it will keep Numista from being a website that serious collectors will use.
I am as disappointed as I feel undermined. I cannot even begin to express how annoying it is going to be to yet again have dozens of people recreating this pages, because they rightfully do not understand why they have all been lumped in the same category. I am with them. I also resent that we give such quarter to folks who do not want to be slaves to Krause but have no understanding of why Krause did what they did, or why it became the world standard when they did it.
Absurd, ridiculous, disheartening.
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
This thread has been left open for over a month, with the last remark saying the members can make their own edits. From my perspective, there was not a definitive descision made here. And with no definitive decision, I did not see a reason to consult you. My apologies for that.
-----
Pick separates pages based off the printer (as with what is being done here), but that is not how we have been doing things on Numista. And we did talk about this in relation to Canadian banknotes before, if I recall correctly.
When banknotes come from different printers, there are obviously going to be some changes in colour--I imagine it would be very difficult for one printer to mix the exact same shades as another printer. And those colour changes can be even more difficult to tell through pictures because cameras or scanners will have different qualities, or because the pictures are taken in different environments, leading to different exposures.
The guilloche is actually a decent example of that, I think. At the pictures I was looking at, the guilloches from Thomas de la Rue, London and the Canadian Bank Note Company did not look different--while the latter used darker shades, it still had all the details of the former.
If the entire note was changed from red-pink to green-pink, that would show the printer was not trying to match the colours, or that they were commissioned with some different type of standard. But going from red-pink to slight-darker-red-pink tells me that there was some kind of standard the printer was trying to match, with the differences being explained by the switch in printer.
-----
While there are colour varieties or different styles of the serial numbers, I was also not aware we were splitting pages based off these--there is so much variation between these two aspects on many other banknotes that I have never even considered splitting pages based off them. Some serial numbers go from blue to red, which is more obvious; some go from black to brown, with is not obvious at all. Some go from flat to assending to descending to non-existant to fractional. With there being so many different varieties, and with individual serials numbers supposedly being unique on every note, I see any serial-number changes as minor.
And the same thing applies to the signatures (in regards to colours, at least).
-----
Between different printers, there will be other minor varieties in the designs. Within coins, I see those as being more comparible to minor varieties shown through different mints. I would definitely support those varieties being mentioned in the comments, but as new pages... I would not agree with that. To me, those are also minor varieties explained by the switch in printer.
-----
Then there are the security features... I think that would be more understandable, but in the examples I looked at, I did not notice any security strip. That is not to say it does not exist--just that it may not be so obvious.
I think there should definitely be some guidelines about security features. For example: I think separating notes with and without holographic strips makes sense, but comparing UV to non-UV... I would think no split there (because we would need a special light to properly see those). Then there is also the discussion about different watermarks getting their own pages (the consensus seems to be no, based on your thread). So I think this issue is a little more complicated
There is one example I am thinking of, but I cannot remember what the exact note is (if I remember, I will post it). Throughout its run, I believe it used a variety of silk fibers, subtle strips, doughnuts, and various combinations of all those, depending on the year. If that page was split by security features, I think it would seem very messy (and if Pick is considered here, even they did not split the page).
So guidelines are definitely needed here.
-----
With all that being said, between P#89 and P#96, there is an actual design change independant of the printer (the vertical bar), so that is why I kept those separate.
From what I can see, Pick uses all these different numbers because of different printers (in regards to these notes, at least). That is not necessarily wrong--it is just their way of doing it. But if a design is explained based off a change in printer, I general consider it a minor change if it looks like there was some sort of standard they were trying to follow. And I have been dealing with all requests with that mindset.
My apologies if you have been annoyed by this--I thought we had a common understanding in regards to printers.
We have less of a common understanding than even I thought. I am disappointed on so many levels with all of this.
But just to point out, the signature changes were not just a change in color. The black ones were applied in a separate run thru the press, while the red ones have been engraved into the plates..
If we were talking about words engraved on a die it would get its own page as a new type. But because we are talking about banknotes it is just a variety? These are all differently engraved master plates. The imprints are different. The plates that include the engraved signatures are different. The intaglio is different. How can any banknote collector place these in the same listing?
Krause wisely didn't, and in this case Numista shouldn't either, with all due respect.
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
