Someone has listed every minute little variation which has led to over 40 entries just for the 1862 year. Really this is overkill. Surely we only need one for each mint mark at the outside and then let the specialist collectors enter notes for all the variations. Otherwise you're just going to confuse the layman collector who won't know where the hell to put their coin.
Hey Neil
Yes it getting hard to tell were to put coins. I thought it would make sense if the coin pages had levels. Like level 1 just circulating coins. Level 2 circulating coins, proofs, and known variants. And simple ones has two leafs and so on. Level 3 everything.
edit level 1 would have to have known variants
On the other hand, maybe it has its meaning for Indian collectors. But it would be great if one could at least hide them on them page, and leave one year - one line showed only.
I hear you loud and clear - being referee for this coin is a 'Damned if I do, Damned if I don't' situation.
Not listing the varieties got me messages from some hardcore British India collectors
Much as these may seem, there are even more subtypes to some of these varieties listed in new British India catalogs by Paul Stevens & Gev Kias.
Faced with all this, I decided to go the KM way (see links below), trust me, it was a pain in the neck and took me hours
.... if the Numista community decides against the varieties - vote and let me know what you want and I'll be glad to modify. I don't have an opinion either way...
It may be best not to mess with the page. I think Andy289 and Phil may have something. Like Andy289 use comment fields. But like Phil A link to go to a page with everything. I think if we start messing with the coin page we would end up with a bigger mess Well after thought.
@josephjk I really appreciate your work and I know it's difficult to please all users as referee but catalog accessibility should be the main target. This is why I suggest to add all extra information (that could be relevant for some collectors) in comment field. Once again, many thanks for your efforts.
Citação: "Jarcek" 'Damned if I do, Damned if I don't' situation. I feel your pain.
In the end, decision is yours. There are many ways how to make best catalogue.
It's time to find a new referee for British India, someone who will bring new ideas, has the vigor to make new entries and bring new energy to the catalog much like you have done in the past few months. I think I have run my course and done what I could to the extent of my knowledge. I'll help wherever I can but I do not have the free time like I used to......
There are only a handful of specialist British Indian collectors. I'm thinking more of the general collector. Imagine a new user who has just discovered the site, they have an 1862 rupee they want to enter, they go to the page and are confronted by a huge page of options where to put their coin.
I think unless they have separate catalogue numbers we should use Phil's suggestion. One entry for each mint and then a note to say that varieties exist and a link to the relevant information regarding identifying the varieties.
French side adds some minor varieties, and form those I see on the English part, there are a lot of so-called varieties, which are actually just die errors.
People who like varieties, I think YOu are bit overtrying in your findings
" filed zeros" in Algerian coin dates are definitely just die errors, but already a lto of members have these coins in catalog so I cannot delete those rows .
Citação: "Dato Mikeladze"Same with Algeria.
French side adds some minor varieties, and form those I see on the English part, there are a lot of so-called varieties, which are actually just die errors.
People who like varieties, I think YOu are bit overtrying in your findings
" filed zeros" in Algerian coin dates are definitely just die errors, but already a lto of members have these coins in catalog so I cannot delete those rows .
best
D
Just tell us on the referee forum, we can move those members.
How about I add 3 additional lines - one for each mint and add a note in comments 'For the novice collector'? That way both group of collectors, advanced and new, could catalog their coins.... Let me know ....
I've been thinking about this a lot ever since the US and Great Britain sections began to include a lot of minor varieties. It's great information to have but not relevant to most collectors.
Perhaps we could restructure the page to please everybody? The worst thing about the current set up is the sheer difficulty of cataloging your coins correctly. I don't care how many eyelashes the Queen has or how many tail feathers the Ostrich, for others such details are important but I shouldn't have to learn about them just to enter my coin in the correct field. I'd much rather omit the minor varieties from the catalog and simply link to them but I concede that others may not wish this so......
Why not use a layout where the year and mintage is assigned only to the "standard" coin, this would have the effect of creating an indent for the "variety" lines so they can be easily ignored. Anything which doesn't have a KM assigned to it should be treated this way. Low Tide and ME Pennies, magnetic / non magnetic - in, Mugabe's bum having an extra wrinkle - out. Do y'all understand what I'm getting at or should I draw a picture? Oh, go on then.........
Year Mintage VG F VF EF UNC EXC KM 11
VG F VF EF UNC EXC (variety text blurb goes here)
VG F VF EF UNC EXC (variety text blurb goes here)
Year Mintage VG F VF EF UNC EXC KM 12
There should be no place in the catalog for errors. They are tricky to define, easy to create (pass me a hammer and a blowtorch and stand back) most are completely contrived and cataloging them in any meaningful way is just not possible. If we could agree on this much it would be a huge step in the right direction.
Non illegitimis carborundum est. Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!
Personally I think that adding extra lines would just make things even worse.
I think we should really come up with a hard and fast rule for the whole catalogue for dealing with varieties, rather than having then dealt with differently in each country. It really makes things untidy if one country has every little variety listed and the next one just has a note to say that varieties exist.
The lines are already there. I'm suggesting we remove the mintage and year cells so that the "real" coin can be identified at a glance.
To be honest, I'm an info. junkie and like having it included, but not at the cost of clarity. I believe Numista works best as a portal to more specialised knowledge - via hyperlinks, not the comments field.
Non illegitimis carborundum est. Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!
I must have written my comment while you were typing Phil. I like this idea A LOT.
That would suit everybody. The novice collector just enters in their coin into the line that has the year and mintage listed, the "simplified catalogue" but there is still room for the specialised collector to list all their variations.
I also agree about errors. Now Jarcek....are you paying attention? Is there any way for this to be implemented? There's already a button to "add 5 more lines" when your adding coins, perhaps we can get a button to "add a variety"
It would be even better if there was an option to "hide varieties" if you don't collect them, leaving just the simplified catalogue.
This evolved nicely. I will put it on the pile for discussion with Xavier. However, it will be another long road... Even the discussion is now minimally two weeks ahead.
On error coin , I think we should have information on them. But I think numisdoc is were that should be. Very few error are the same, or have the amount made to be well known. To me they are fun to find. But I really don't collect them . I have a few. Variations are becoming very common with over use of the dies. Big ones like leaf, dot or open number are very well known, were they make changes in the die . To me are good.
First we must all put a rule - what is variety and what is minor variety.
For me, Victoria's busts on Indian Rupees ( Type A and Tupe B ) are definitely different and must be shown in catalog if we want to be bit better than SCWC book.
For a part of collectors who don't collect Indian coin types and for those who is happy to get just one Victoria Rupee, it is enough, but for serious collectors, it's a great information.
Same with other countries. Very hard to distinguish major variety from minor variety.
So I guess, we must leave everything as it is, if it's an actual variety. But we must erase it, if it's just die crack, or something else.
Anyway, we must create a way to keep all that minor varieties for people who are interested in them.
I am still irritable about the edge lettering orientation being listed as separate lines for the US presidential dollars. Whenever I see them on someone's swap list, I have to doublecheck whether I already have that mint mark or if it's just the other orientation, which I really couldn't care less about. I've got enough money sitting in my Whitman dollar coin folders as is - I'm certainly not going to double it by collecting both edge lettering orientations!
Citação: "Jesse11"I am still irritable about the edge lettering orientation being listed as separate lines for the US presidential dollars. Whenever I see them on someone's swap list, I have to doublecheck whether I already have that mint mark or if it's just the other orientation, which I really couldn't care less about. I've got enough money sitting in my Whitman dollar coin folders as is - I'm certainly not going to double it by collecting both edge lettering orientations!
Citação: "Jesse11"I am still irritable about the edge lettering orientation being listed as separate lines for the US presidential dollars. Whenever I see them on someone's swap list, I have to doublecheck whether I already have that mint mark or if it's just the other orientation, which I really couldn't care less about. I've got enough money sitting in my Whitman dollar coin folders as is - I'm certainly not going to double it by collecting both edge lettering orientations!
I agree!
Me too. It happens in a lot of coins, not just the presidential dollars. And it causes me some trouble in swapping: lot of times I pick one coins that I already have, but not that edge orientation.
Citação: "neilithic"It would be even better if there was an option to "hide varieties" if you don't collect them, leaving just the simplified catalogue.
I agree with this. There should be an option to hide or at least separate varieties for people who don't collect them.
In the same spirit the "proof" lines should be removed and replaced by a checkbox next to the other grades.
Citação: "Dato Mikeladze"First we must all put a rule - what is variety and what is minor variety.
For me, Victoria's busts on Indian Rupees ( Type A and Tupe B ) are definitely different and must be shown in catalog if we want to be bit better than SCWC book.
For a part of collectors who don't collect Indian coin types and for those who is happy to get just one Victoria Rupee, it is enough, but for serious collectors, it's a great information.
Same with other countries. Very hard to distinguish major variety from minor variety.
So I guess, we must leave everything as it is, if it's an actual variety. But we must erase it, if it's just die crack, or something else.
Anyway, we must create a way to keep all that minor varieties for people who are interested in them.
thanks,
David
I agree with this. This information may be important to someone but it should not clutter the pages.
Also, major varieties that have their own lines should be clearly explained; in this case, a description (or better, a picture) of type A, B and C busts, type I and II reverses. I shouldn't need to take out my krause to know where to put my coin.
Citação: "BryanJ"In the same spirit the "proof" lines should be removed and replaced by a checkbox next to the other grades.
Whatever we'll do to hide certain variations or issue types, proofs are not a grade so there is no reason to give them their own grade checkbox.
It's not a grade but I can think of a few reasons to have a "proof" checkbox instead of a line:
- it would simplify the pages without loss of feature
- it would allow people who don't collect proofs to still have a complete set
- it would remove the possibility of nonsense like a proof coin graded VF
If no documentation is given for a variant (images, images and images showing the variations), then the referee should not accept the variant (not even if it is copied from the SCWC).
We need a proof of those things.
Of course it would also mean that NO variant nor error can be entered WITHOUT the corresponding documentation The simplest form of documentation would be for example ' KM 1901-2000 edition nn'
Hey Ole
I like your ideal, But would add a comment box first. One for your collection only and one by swap coins just for swap coins. That way you can write who you got it from price you paid for . And things you don't want everyone to see
Citação: "BryanJ"In the same spirit the "proof" lines should be removed and replaced by a checkbox next to the other grades.
Whatever we'll do to hide certain variations or issue types, proofs are not a grade so there is no reason to give them their own grade checkbox.
It's not a grade but I can think of a few reasons to have a "proof" checkbox instead of a line:
- it would simplify the pages without loss of feature
- it would allow people who don't collect proofs to still have a complete set
- it would remove the possibility of nonsense like a proof coin graded VF
It is perfectly possible to have a proof coin graded VF if it's a proof-only date (such as 1990-S for American coins) which escaped into circulation (and/or was used as a pocket piece).
Very unusual, sure, but well within the realm of possibility.
EDIT: what the slab (if the coin is ever officially graded) will actually say is PR-20, of course, but it's still VF.
The simplest form of documentation would be for example ' KM 1901-2000 edition nn'
