1. In the coin secion of Spanish Notgeld, in the Province of Barcelona, the Ametlla del Vallès coins have remained in two different issuers but with the same name, I don't know why.
2. In Spanish notgeld (both in coins and banknotes), Francisco Franco's title is President, and it should be, as in the rest of Franco coins and notes from “Spain Not Notgeld”, Ruling Authority and not President (Spain wasn't a Republic).
The rest is all perfect, thank you very much!
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
Status alterado para Iniciado(Jarcek, 23 Fev 2023, 09:35)
1. In the coin secion of Spanish Notgeld, in the Province of Barcelona, the Ametlla del Vallès coins have remained in two different issuers but with the same name, I don't know why.
2. In Spanish notgeld (both in coins and banknotes), Francisco Franco's title is President, and it should be, as in the rest of Franco coins and notes from “Spain Not Notgeld”, Ruling Authority and not President (Spain wasn't a Republic).
The rest is all perfect, thank you very much!
2 is fixed.
For 1, please link the empty duplicate for me to delete it (make sure it is empty first)
1. In the coin secion of Spanish Notgeld, in the Province of Barcelona, the Ametlla del Vallès coins have remained in two different issuers but with the same name, I don't know why.
2. In Spanish notgeld (both in coins and banknotes), Francisco Franco's title is President, and it should be, as in the rest of Franco coins and notes from “Spain Not Notgeld”, Ruling Authority and not President (Spain wasn't a Republic).
The rest is all perfect, thank you very much!
Oscar, Franco's title should be indicated as ‘Caudillo’, as that is what it is given on the later coins from the 1950's until the early 1970's.
He was also classed as a regent dictator serving a lifetime term.
1. In the coin secion of Spanish Notgeld, in the Province of Barcelona, the Ametlla del Vallès coins have remained in two different issuers but with the same name, I don't know why.
There is a duplicate indeed. One with 2 coins and the other with 3 coins. You can see difference in URL with one being named lametlla_del_valles_notgeld and the other ametlla_del_valles_notgeld
Please move all coins to one of these and I'll delete the duplicate once emptied
1. In the coin secion of Spanish Notgeld, in the Province of Barcelona, the Ametlla del Vallès coins have remained in two different issuers but with the same name, I don't know why.
There is a duplicate indeed. One with 2 coins and the other with 3 coins. You can see difference in URL with one being named lametlla_del_valles_notgeld and the other ametlla_del_valles_notgeld
Please move all coins to one of these and I'll delete the duplicate once emptied
Done, all the coins from l'Ametlla del Vallès are now under the same issuer. The other one is empty and can be deleted.
Thanks again.
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
Just for info, cardboard is most likely not belonging to banknotes … Or we urgently need cardboard as banknote material …
All of these Civil War BANKNOTES are printed on “cartulina o cartón” and are obviously banknotes. I don't understand the comment. In Spain, for many banknotes "cartulina or carton" was used, whose only translation I have found is cardboard.
The definition of the RAE for “cartulina” is: "Thin cardboard, generally smooth, used for cards, diplomas and the like."
In fact, it is a material that is somewhat thicker than paper and that could also be folded. I have several of these.
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
The “Guidelines for editing the catalog” say that to be a coin it must be made of a rigid material. The case of cardboard seems doubtful to me. At Numista we have similar pieces that are some in the coin catalog and others in the banknote catalog.
I don't know if there are words in English and French to differentiate between cartón and cartulina, and where is the limit. If there are, this could be a criterion as coins get thicker than bills. Krause makes it easy, all is paper money.
It seems clear that when the issuer made round-shaped pieces, he wanted them to circulate like coins, and a rectangular shape if they were going to be banknotes.
I propose to use the criterion that if it is made of round cardboard we consider it coins, and if it is made of rectangular cardboard then banknotes. I mean only cardboard, not paper. This would be the move of 25 banknotes to coins, all from Spain notgeld.
This criterion do not affect currently any other issuer as you can see:
I propose to use the criterion that if it is made of round cardboard we consider it coins, and if it is made of rectangular cardboard then banknotes. I mean only cardboard, not paper. This would be the move of 25 banknotes to coins, all from Spain notgeld.
Seems to be good for me, I would also propose to integrate that in the guideline.
FYI in french we use the word “carton” for cardboard (pretty rigid, for moving boxes for instance), and “papier” for all the rest (even the paper used for play cards for instance)
FYI in french we use the word “carton” for cardboard (pretty rigid, for moving boxes for instance), and “papier” for all the rest (even the paper used for play cards for instance)
That's true but Cartulina is what we would qualify in french in “Papier haut grammage” (or Canson but it's a brand) for everithing more than 80g/m2 (normal paper for printer). From 400gr/m2 up it's rigide but if you expose it to moisture of multiple usage it became bendable.
I propose to use the criterion that if it is made of round cardboard we consider it coins, and if it is made of rectangular cardboard then banknotes. I mean only cardboard, not paper. This would be the move of 25 banknotes to coins, all from Spain notgeld.
Seems to be good for me, I would also propose to integrate that in the guideline.
I don't entirely agree on this topic.
For me there are two essential points to take into account: material and manufacturing process.
1. If the material is rigid it should go to coins, if it is flexible or reasonably flexible, banknotes.
2. If there is a minting process (milled for example), they are coins. If the process is printing, banknotes. For example, to make the Civil War notes, the same printing process was used (they were made in printers, in many cases private) for both square and round banknotes.
If, as you are saying, we convert round notes to coins only because of their shape (material and manufacturing process match the banknotes), then depending on the shape, should all rectangular coins be converted to bills? Of course not, since they are made of rigid material (usually metals or alloys) and the minting process is that of coins and not banknotes.
In fact, taking into account, nowadays, the shape of a piece to classify it as a coin or note is something absurd, taking into account the number of shapes that are used today to make coins. Many coins are currently made rectangular (especially commemorative), and for this reason we do not consider converting all rectangular bills to coins.
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
In fact, taking into account, nowadays, the shape of a piece to classify it as a coin or note is something absurd, taking into account the number of shapes that are used today to make coins. Many coins are currently made rectangular (especially commemorative), and for this reason we do not consider converting all rectangular bills to coins.
I partially agree but give me a round or oval banknotes print in the last 50 years? What you are saying for coins is valid but there is an excellent reason why there is no round banknotes nowadays …
Regarding printing it's a good point but what about stamped cartboard?
In the end, what must be done is to establish a criterion so that everyone can follow it in the same way. I still believe that the shape should not be a determining factor, but rather the material and the manufacturing process.
When the criterion is established, the pieces that must be moved will be moved.
In the case of Civil War notes, in all the catalogs and websites where they are cited or sold, they are always included in banknotes, just one more piece of information. Also, if we make that distinction, series of banknotes from the same issuer would be "separated" between two catalogues, but hey, that's not relevant either.
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
If, as you are saying, we convert round notes to coins only because of their shape (material and manufacturing process match the banknotes), then depending on the shape, should all rectangular coins be converted to bills? Of course not, since they are made of rigid material (usually metals or alloys) and the minting process is that of coins and not banknotes.
No, I haven't said that. I have said:
1.- Rigid material → coin
2.- Flexible material → banknote
3.- Cardboard → doubt, and proposing
3.1.- Round shape → coin
3.2.- Rectangular shape → banknote
It is a proposal, aligned with the current Guidelines, and involve to move 25 banknotes of 1 issuer. In the scope of this thread.
Óscar, you say:
1.- Milled (I assume you include hammered, etc) → coin
2.- Printed → banknote
Your criteria are not in the Guidelines and involve to move 34 coins of 4 issuers, plus perhaps hundreds with printed decalcomanias (stickers). Needs a broader consensus than this thread.
Referee for Spain, Iberia (ancient), Suebi Kingdom and Visigothic Kingdom
If, as you are saying, we convert round notes to coins only because of their shape (material and manufacturing process match the banknotes), then depending on the shape, should all rectangular coins be converted to bills? Of course not, since they are made of rigid material (usually metals or alloys) and the minting process is that of coins and not banknotes.
No, I haven't said that. I have said:
1.- Rigid material → coin
2.- Flexible material → banknote
3.- Cardboard → doubt, and proposing
3.1.- Round shape → coin
3.2.- Rectangular shape → banknote
It is a proposal, aligned with the current Guidelines, and involve to move 25 banknotes of 1 issuer. In the scope of this thread.
Óscar, you say:
1.- Milled (I assume you include hammered, etc) → coin
2.- Printed → banknote
Your criteria are not in the Guidelines and involve to move 34 coins of 4 issuers, plus perhaps hundreds with printed decalcomanias (stickers). Needs a broader consensus than this thread.
Hi Paco (and the rest 😉), your proposal does not seem bad at all, I think it is quite logical and correct.
The only problem I see is that the term cardboard is quite ambiguous, since, for example, I have used this term both for quite rigid cardboard ("cartón) (type of stamp-coins), and for not rigid cardboard ("cartulina") (which would be closer to thick paper, since I have some of these notes and it is closer to commonly used paper than to rigid cardboard)
As for the round and oval pieces, I don't have any of those, so I don't know if it is closer to thick paper or to the rigid cardboard. Maybe, those that are described in the Catalog as thin cardboard ("cartulina"), I should write paper in material field so as not to confuse, what do you think?
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
In order to prepare the last list of issuers that are missing in Spanish Norgeld - Civil War, I would like to comment on the issuers that are isolated territories and that are not properly municipalities, in order to reach a consensus. This issue was already discussed at the beginning of this Topic.
For coins:
Issuer:Island of Menorca (or only Menorca) (Province of Balearic Islands)
Although the Province of Asturias was called at that time the province of Oviedo, I think it is better to keep Asturias so as not to confuse. Asturias was the name of the Region.
For banknotes:
Issuer: Municipality of Bilbao (Province of Biscay)
Issuing bank: Bank of Spain (we might add this option of Bank of Spain to these banknotes)
The use of Issuing Entity with these pieces seems correct to me. The problem is that the ones that are already in "notgeld" issuers, in Spain and other countries, usually do not use this field.
The use of Issuing Entity with these pieces seems correct to me. The problem is that the ones that are already in "notgeld" issuers, in Spain and other countries, usually do not use this field.
Yes, I agree with you, that's why in the Spanish Notgeld bsnknote section (almost 2300 pieces), they all have their Issuing entity except some of the ones I've mentioned before, which I'm waiting for a consensus to add.
As for the coins, there are not that many and, when what has been said before is agreed, I can help you with that part of the catalogue.
Are you agree with the classification that I have shown before?
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
If, as you are saying, we convert round notes to coins only because of their shape (material and manufacturing process match the banknotes), then depending on the shape, should all rectangular coins be converted to bills? Of course not, since they are made of rigid material (usually metals or alloys) and the minting process is that of coins and not banknotes.
No, I haven't said that. I have said:
1.- Rigid material → coin
2.- Flexible material → banknote
3.- Cardboard → doubt, and proposing
3.1.- Round shape → coin
3.2.- Rectangular shape → banknote
It is a proposal, aligned with the current Guidelines, and involve to move 25 banknotes of 1 issuer. In the scope of this thread.
Óscar, you say:
1.- Milled (I assume you include hammered, etc) → coin
2.- Printed → banknote
Your criteria are not in the Guidelines and involve to move 34 coins of 4 issuers, plus perhaps hundreds with printed decalcomanias (stickers). Needs a broader consensus than this thread.
Hi Paco (and the rest 😉), your proposal does not seem bad at all, I think it is quite logical and correct.
The only problem I see is that the term cardboard is quite ambiguous, since, for example, I have used this term both for quite rigid cardboard ("cartón) (type of stamp-coins), and for not rigid cardboard ("cartulina") (which would be closer to thick paper, since I have some of these notes and it is closer to commonly used paper than to rigid cardboard)
As for the round and oval pieces, I don't have any of those, so I don't know if it is closer to thick paper or to the rigid cardboard. Maybe, those that are described in the Catalog as thin cardboard ("cartulina"), I should write paper in material field so as not to confuse, what do you think?
1. Under the Province of Oviedo, the Municipality must be Gijón (and not Oviedo, as I wrote by mistake). The municipality of Oviedo does not have notes or coins, so it can be replaced by that of Gijón.
2. The Municipality of Bilbao has been mistakenly placed under the Province of Albacete, when it should be in the Province of Biscay.
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
1. Under the Province of Oviedo, the Municipality must be Gijón (and not Oviedo, as I wrote by mistake). The municipality of Oviedo does not have notes or coins, so it can be replaced by that of Gijón.
2. The Municipality of Bilbao has been mistakenly placed under the Province of Albacete, when it should be in the Province of Biscay.
Everything has worked correctly, thank you very much!
Since this Spanish Notgeld topic started about 2 years ago, more than 2200 pages of new banknotes have been created and more than 840 new issuers. Thank you very much to all of you who have participated in it, I, for my part, will continue looking for more banknotes to add to the catalogue.
For now, and if no one thinks otherwise, I think this topic should be closed and put DONE. If more issuers come out, I will request them in the Referees Forum.
Many thanks!!!
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
I just love when big thread comes to a close like this! Thank you all that participated in it.
PS: One day, we might want to even add a short introduction to each of these issuers. :)
😲 Yes, maybe one day… Just out of curiosity, what is the system for adding information from each place and what kind of information would be logical to add (if you could give me an example…)
We should also try to put the corresponding flags of each issuer (if it has them) and, I suppose, that also of each Province that contains subissuers, right? Also out of curiosity, what is the system in Numista to add flags? Can a user or referee do it? I think it would be good if it were like this in order to expedite this issue.
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
Descriptions are inserted by admins directly into database, similarly to currencies, rulers and other stuff. They should be brief, and provide mixed summary focused on history and coinage/banknotes. See good example here: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/aquitaine_kingdom-1.html (It should not be longer than this if possible.)
For flags, it is a little bit harder. They have to be created via photo editor (in specific way) and then they are uploaded by Xavier.
