Recherche sur le forum
462 résultats ont été trouvés.
I posted this coin on the forum... over a year ago now. Someone suggested it is from the Khwarazemian Empire; however, I have had no luck searching that place. So I though I would try again. Maybe someone who missed the old post recognizes this coin. •
It weighs 3.30 grams and is around 18 millimetres in diameter. •
And... thank you for your time!
And... done. •
The references were removed from the year-lines, so everything now looks less cluttered. As well, some year-lines were merged; however, any years that have the varieties identicating the mints still remain.
I contacted the referee about this, who would like the year to remain on the page. Because it has been documented, there is a possibility the year did, in fact, exist. It could have an extremely small mintage and be quite rare, or maybe the vast majority were melted. There are various explainations. •
With that being said, there are currently 224 members who claim to own that year. Typically, when there is a year that does not exist, only a couple dozen members claim to own that year (at most). And if you factor out the members who mark every year as owned, there are very few members who remain. So 224 mis-identifications is exceedingly high if that year does not actually exist. •
For those reasons, I am rejecting this request. But of course, if you would like to submit a request to add a comment about that year-line possibly not existing, please feel free to do so. The referee may accept that c[...]
Hm. Looking at the modification history of that piece, it has been 'Coin' since 2010. It started in Morocco, was moved to the Islamic states in 2015, then was moved to Iran a month after. •
And the reason you cannot find the referee for Iran is because there is no referee for Iran. •
I will mark this thread as Accepted because that page should certainly not exist like it currently is.
I have not been able to find pictures from an allowable source (and so I am unable to add pictures to the page that show the difference); however, this link shows the difference for 1974: •
A comment has been added explaining the difference between those two. •
So... what about 1977? Well, only one line exists now. It appear the large date variety is located on this page: •
(The only difference between the two types seems to be the obverse legend, which is not that apparent at first, if you do not understand the language.)
Seeing as how the date is impossible, I guess I will reject this. And of course, the thread can always be re-opened if some evidence is provided that shows it is, in fact, a real coin.
I messaged the referee about this.
No problem! •
The easiest way to find the referee for a specific country is to go to that country's page, then scroll to the very bottom. Assuming there is, in fact, a referee for that country (and most countries do have one), it will say Numista referee for this country is [insert name here]. If you would like to contact them, clicking their name will take you to their profile, where you can send them a message. •
In the case of Ragusa, the referee is hoffman12. I am still awaiting a response.
I messaged one of the referees.
And... now this thread is done.
And the different purities means they should remain separate.
Your type does appear to be missing--I was also unable to find it. •
To add your piece, you will need to open this link: •
And... just fill out the information you know. •
Oh, and this is KM#160, by the by. •
These ones have been added.
The comment for point 2 has been added.
This place now has twice as many coins listed.
I previously set this thread to Started because I do have a pending request to add that information to the comments section. The information is still relevant, but should only add to the page--not replace anything currently there.
The requests have been validated, and the regular 2017 year-lines are now gone.
This has been added to the comments section.
Do you happen to have a picture of your coin? •
I believe it is located here: •
As you said, Krause lists XIV (kaf), XXIX ('aa), and XXXI ('ab), but it doe not list mim (XV) or Ayn Elif (maybe I?). With that being said, the year-list may not actually be complete... •
A full chart of these symbols/numbers can be found on the following link (keep scrolling until you come to the first set of pictures): •
1. A 'Confirmation needed' was added to the end of both 1945 year-lines. They are reported, and many people claim to own those years; however, seeing as how slight the variation is, many could be mis-identified. So, if anyone knows they have those years for-sure, they may mention it, and the comment can be removed. •
2. The date has been changed to 1945.
In that link, the only pictures are of the 5 Cent piece. But it mentions the 1 Shilling existing, as well as the 10 and 20 Cents existing in Trial strike versions. There is a lack of information on the 50 Cent piece. But regardless, these types should only be found at the mint's museum (and I say should because... well, look at the 5 Cent piece). •
The pages were approved. Here are the five of them: •
If the only numbers you have are maximum mintages (i.e., the actual mintage is completely unknown), I would think it is fine to list those as the mintage, as long as there is some sort of comment that states the number is only a maximum amount.
This is done. •
Not under Swedish occupation. The monogram is of Sigismund III Vasa (Polish-Lithuanian ruler), and Swedish occupation coins should have Swedish rulers. •
I am seeing some crossed keys under that cross, indicating this coin was struck in Riga for the Duchy of Livonia. And the 99 is the date--1599. •
Here is the corresponding page: •
A comment about the varieties was added to the comments section.
Your documentation shows 10 Dinar rather than 1 Dinar. But I would assume you already noticed that based on the following thread. •
So... I am going to close this thread and keep the other open.
Alrighty. Done for real this time, I think. •
If I made anymore mistakes, please do not hesitate to point them out.
Rejected because you actually have a different type. •
If you look at the reverse legend, the 1968 one says MARDI GRAS IN 'OLD' MOBILE, whereas your 1969 one says MARDI GRAS IN CAJUNLAND. So, while no new year-line is to be added, a new page can certainly be created since your type does not seem to be in the catalogue yet. •
I do not have time right now, so if you cannot get to it yourself, I will add the page... later.
I am going to mark this thread as Accepted; however, I will make no call on whether or not the page gets split or stays how it is (similar to this thread: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic81394.html). •
There are supposed to be new guidelines coming out, so when that happens, we will be able to make a decision on this thread. But until then, let's keep this thread as Accepted (because anything we do may have to be un-done whenever those guidelines come out).
Hm... I am going to mark this thread as Accepted, but will make no comment on whether Y#59 gets merged or Y#60 gets split. •
I thought the new guildelines would have come out a while ago, which is why I have neglected this thread so far, so let's call this Accepted because, when those guidelines come out, something will be done with these pages. And we should really not do much until then, because otherwise, we may have to reverse any changes made.
The year-line has been added.
Seeing as how this is not really a request to modify a coin's page, but rather a Numismatic question, I am going to mark this thread as Done. •
That aside, this is a rather interesting situation. I searched for any sign of an Altona, Switzerland, but came up with nothing. •
With that being said, take a look at this coin: •
The last year-line comments make mention of Germany, although it does not specify Altona. But if you look at this link: •
Altona, Germany is mentioned. •
To me, the odds of one country having their coins minted by two foriegn mints, both with the name Altona, seems slim. That is not to say impossible, but... improbable. But then again, mistaking Germany for Switzerland seems like a rather major error. I am really not sure what to think of this...
A comment about the variety has been added.
Similar to the other thread, the reported mintage is a Maximum mintage. So... the Maximum mintage was added to the comments section.
Citation: "Bears4Hire"Dear Sulfur, •
I concur, except that the SA catalog appears to only have local currency, and should not be applied to coinage distributed internationally. •
Since adanieluy denies any international distribution, such exclusion should not pose a circumstance. •
Best regards,So you want to discount the catalogue's listing solely because it is a local catalogue? •
In my opinion, local catalogues are a rather great resource. Local catalgoues always specialize whereas non-local ones (like Krause and Schön) tend to generalize. There is, of course, nothing wrong with generalizing; however, because of how many countries those catalogues cover, they cannot possibly be as comprehensive as some local catalogues. They tend to skip varieties, sometimes miss dates, etcetera. •
And please keep in mind: just because it is a local catalogue, it does not mean they report 'local mintages'. It would [...]
From what I have found, I must come to the same conclusion as Idolenz: the main difference between these pieces is the size and weight, and the calligraphy style varies. And if that is the case, the pictures are both pages are, more-than-likely, correct. •
Here are three examples of C#18 (all from allowable sources, if the pictures are still to be changed): •
The pages have been merged.
No way for you to do it, but I can.
These have all been added.
No worries. Mistakes happen all the time.
Welp, specimen was added to the year-line, so... that part is done. •
The referee could not find a reference to a regular Proof version, so no new line was added. And, while I have never heard the term Specimen Proof before this thread, I am thinking it may be synonymous with Specimen. It is the only explaination I can come to. •
And as for the Proof set... do you mean this one? •
While it is listed as a Proof set, all finishes are listed as Specimen.
Yes, please provide some pictures. I would love to help, but I cannot do much without proof.
Posté le :
Coin identifications and valuations
Um... not Ostrogothic. As far as I remember, the only ruler with a front-facing portrait was Baduila, but that does not look like him. •
I believe you can find your coin on this link (SB#716): •
They say Decanummium, but the picture shows a Pentanummium very similar to yours. •
I really wish I had some time to do more research, but I must leave now. Hopefully that link will provide enough information that you can further research your coin. •
Oh, and another similar one. •
Marking this thread as Done because... well, everything is done.
Wow. 1,400 is... quite a lot. •
But I agree with you. And I really hope the Numista Robot can help solve this.
Seeing as how this is a request to change a coin's page, and there is no possible field to add that information in, it is an impossible task, so I must reject this request. •
With that being said, please re-post this topic in this forum as a 'Suggestion for Numista': https://en.numista.com/forum/forum15.html. •
A more comprehensive way for measurements would certainly be helpful (especially for oddly-shaped coins). And seeing how the Metal field was changed to be more comprehensive, I would imagine this is definitely possible to implement. However, this thread must first be posted in the correct section so it can be properly tracked. •
Oh, but until a feature like this is implemented, you can always write the hole's measurements in the comments section. That... may suffice.
As COINMAN1 said, some say Proof is not a condition. And I am one who would completely agree with that. •
For the most part, modern proofs should typically grade above a 60 (MS on regular coins); however, an impaired proof is one that has been circulated. Take the one in this link, for example: •
The coin was graded Proof-45 (so... EF). •
And because of impaired proofs, I like Numista's current format.
The page has been updated: •
I hope everything looks more proper now.
Citation: "Jarcek"Revisiting this.... •
Seaching for Pius gives also results for Pivs, so... is there anything wrong?Looking at it from a consistency-view, there is definitely something wrong. •
Some titles say Pius, whereas others say Pivs. For the sake of consistency, one spelling should be chosen. And of course, after one spelling is chosen, it would still make sense if searching Pius also gives Pivs, and vice versa. •
With that being said... this seems to be a large job. Something more suitable for the Robot, I would think. •
It seems there are these four names: •
Seeing as how Latin is an official language of the Vatican City, keeping the names in their Latin forms would be within Numista's guidelines, meaning the Ioannes should be fine... I think. So, if I am not mistaken, the changes (only in the Title field) would be: •
Pivs to Pi[...]
Seeing as how this is a request to change a coin's page, I am going to have to reject this request solely because it is impossible to complete. Right now, all we have is one diameter, regardless of the coin's shape. •
With that being said, if you could re-post this thread as a 'Suggestion for Numista' in this forum: https://en.numista.com/forum/forum15.html, that would be excellent. I, personally, think this would be a great feature (if implemented); however, it must first be posted under the correct section so the suggestion can be properly tracked. •
And of course, if the feature is implemented, your coin (whichever one you are talking about), can be changed, as can any of similar shapes. •
Oh, but you can always request to add this information to the comments section. That way, the information is still on the page somewhere.
2. The year-list has been updated. There were a lot, so if any line happens to still be missing, please do not hesitate to point it out.
Numista has a negative search now? Love it. •
And I really like this Releases tab!
Well that is certainly interesting! •
I am fine with the comments about how many exist (although I do think the year-lines should be merged--the example at the museum probably does not need its own line). But I would agree that this is probably not a commemorative coin, seeing as how the edge is not lettered. However, if these were minted for a company, I guess the status should be changed to Non-circulating coin rather than Standard circulating coin.
It looks like this is done.
Hello (and my apologies for the very delayed response)! •
Firstly, I cropped your images: •
The dates are obviously different (as are the 2s); however, for a new year-line to be considered, you will need to provide another example of your large-date coin. •
The small-date is from Calcutta. If you look at the documentation on the page, another 2007 Calcutta coin is shown, which also has a small date. •
But the large-date you provided is from Hyderabad. •
The reason for the difference in the dates could just be that they were minted in different places. If that is the case, all Calcutta coins have a small date, while all Hyderabad coins have a large date. And if that is the case, no new year-line is needed. •
But if you can find a large-date from Calcutta, then a new year-line can be considered. •
I hope that all makes sense.
The new issuer-lines have been added.
The members have been moved and the line deleted.
The circled maple leaf is the logo of the Royal Canadian Mint (which, on Numista, is symbolized by the L after the dates). On loonies before 2006, no logo was used; on loonies after 2006, the logo was used. And in 2006, there was a mixture of both logo and non-logo coins. •
So, to answer your question: yes, both your coins are KM#495.
Your coin is this one, correct? •
Yay! Even if I may not agree with all the naming, it is nice to see this all done! •
With that being said, would you be able to add four more issuers under the Indian states? •
Citation: "Sulfur"Hyderabad Feudatories (see post below): •
Hyderabad-Aurangabad Feudatory •
Hyderabad-Narayanpett Feudatory •
Hyderabad-Kankurti Feudatory •
Hyderabad-Wanparti Feudatory •
While there were no currencies for these places, there are still coins from these places listed in the catalogue. They are just located under regular Hyderabad. And seeing as how we do have Hyderabad-Elichpur as an issuer... maybe?
Citation: "Jarcek"This now applies as request for creating rulers... Please Sulfur, if you can, change the designation of the thread.If you wish. The designation has now been changed.
Your coins are located under Portugal. See here: •
And here you can find an explanation as to why that is: •
Teremari... my first thought was "Terra Mariana" (the official name of mediaeval Livonia). Of course, having a coin nicknamed "Mediaeval Livonia" does make much sense--especially if the coin is from 1764. So... maybe not. •
Citation: "Fransvannes"Was the Maria Theresia thaler (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Theresa_thaler) used in the Baltic provinces at the time? Could this have had the value of 4 rubles in 1764? •
For the first question, I would say most definitely. After the capitulation of Livonia and Estonia, those two places were not using Russia's currency like they were supposed to, but rather continued to use a Thaler-based system. They relied on foreign coins as their main supply, and with the Maria Theresia thaler being so widely circulated, that was more than likely one of the types to circulate there. •
With that being said, the Livonese was introduced as a Russian version of the Prussian Thaler. One Livonese was[...]
The vast majority of these pieces are from Livonia. I will provide all links below, but if you would like any additional information on the Livonian ones, please do not hesitate to ask! There many coins, so to make this post as compact as possible, I will only be providing minimum information. •
2) 1 Solidus, Swedish Livonia (occupation of Riga), 1643: •
3) 1 Schilling, Duchy of Livonia, 1599: •
4) 3 Polker, Swedish Livonia (occupation of Riga), 1624: •
5) 3 Polker, Swedish Livonia (occupation of Riga), 1648: •
6) Not Livonian. This one is from the German state of Brandenburg-Prussia, dated 1626. Possibly this one: •
7) 1 Solidus, Swedish L[...]
Both mintages have been added, albeit in the reverse of what you mentioned (A with 1750 and B with 1000). •
It appears the year-line has been added (the BU one).
Citation: "bjherbison"Is the inability to search for the years on the coins through "Year" an inherent limitation of the catalog, or a short-cut taken when the coins are added?It is there as a way to take other, non-Gregorian calendars into consideration. •
The year function is meant to indicate what is written on the coin; the Gregorian date function is meant to indicate which Gregorian year the coin was struck. Of course, on places that only use the Gregorian calendar, there is no difference between the two. •
It appears many (if not all) coins from Jordan use both the Islamic calendar and the Gregorian calendar. It would not make much sense to make the year '1993' because then there is no way to search the coin using the Islamic year. And making the year '1414-1993' would also not work, since that would involve using the no-date function, which is only meant to use the Gregorian dates. With that being said, I, personally, think the page works per[...]
It appears the new year-line has been added.
Citation: "klei92" •
Oh thank you Sulfur, as all pictures of the coins here in numista were mostly centered i thought that the off-center was the "thing" to catch counterfaits, didnt noticed or even think about the mateiral . •
About the date, well you are totally correct, i totally messed there and i think i can see in the picture the last of thoose two 33 you are tallking about and fo corse with the coin in the hand i can see also that 3 but the first one mmm... i am not able at all •
No problem! And luckily, it does not really matter whether or not the first digit is visible--all coins with this date-placement were struck in the 1630s, so with every date, it must be a 3. •
I may also be able to help with the first coin. If you look at the place where the second digit should be, you can see the very top of that digit (a horizontal, down-facing curve thing). Right away, with the curve facing d[...]
No problem, and same to you!
2 Dukat Carl XI
Posté le :
Coin identifications and valuations
In 1672, the only gold coins struck in Reval were 5 dukat pieces, and as Petrus said, they were hammered. With that being said, your coin could still be made of gold--it could very well be a bullion piece--but this would not be a genuine piece from Reval.
And please add this one as well: •
Antike Numismatik •
Robert Göbl •
Munich, 1978 •
Please add the following reference: •
Imitations of Roman Bronze Coins A.D. 318-363 •
Pierre Bastien •
ANSMN 30, 1985 •
Those are definitely duplicates. •
One has been deleted. If you see any other duplicates, feel free to post them so they can also be dealt with.
All comments have been changed to reflect KM#651a.
It is definitely from Dorpat, although I would say the Dietrich III type rather than the Bernhard one. •
The crossed swords and keys on your piece look rather small, which matches Dietrich III's type the best. As well, in the first picture (which is actually of the reverse), I can read the letters NET, which would be the last part of MONET. And on these lübische pieces, that word was not used on the other types. •
And here is its page: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces143417.html.
It appears this request has been overridden by this one: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic80692.html. •
I submitted a request to re-add this documentation alongside the current one.
Hm... are you sure you submitted a request for this one? It appears all your other Australian ones have been approved, but this page is still missing its documentation.
Citation: "ngdawa"To start with, all countries needs to start with NP#1, otherwise it will be a disaster. All denominations should also follow the previous, unless devaluations, or other major changes has been made. So all Falkland Islands 1 pennies should be NP#2, as 2a, 2b, 2c, etc. after changed of composiions and queen's portrait (etc.). •
This is similar to what I was thinking, although not with the letters. •
If you look under the Livonian Order, there are currently 49 schilling pieces (with the schilling being the sixth denomination). I do not think letters would suffice with that because the 49th coin would be... maybe #6bx? I don't know. I would prefer to follow with more numbers--something like #6.49. •
While I also like the look of letters, I was thinking those could possibly be reserved for new additions. Say I added a new schilling page under the Livonian Order that happened to be number 9 out of now 50. Rather than shifting all the followi[...]
Looks good to me! Thank you very much!
The top right one is definitely Livonian. It is a 1 pfennig piece from the Archbishopric of Riga, which was minted under Silvester Stodewescher (1448 to 1479). You can find that type's page here: •
The top left one... might be Livonian. It reminds me of Hermann II Wesel coins from the Bishopric of Dorpat, but compared to the Stodewescher one, it does not match the pfennig (there should be a shield around the key). The schillings do not have a shield, but they should be too large. I would need better pictures on that one. •
(And here is a link to the pfennig: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces142198.html.) •
The bottom right one may be a Thomas Schöning pfennig from the Archbishopric of Riga, but... I doubt it. Specifically because of the shape of (what reminds me of) the shield, located in the first picture. With that said, I remember only ever being able to find one picture of that type, so there co[...]
Livonian Order and the Archbishopric of Riga, 1 schilling, Riga mint, 1559 to 1561. •
Reval mint has a cross on the reverse; Riga mint has an eagle. There are two types from the Riga mint: one with a cross dividing the obverse legend and one without. Although the pictures are a little dark, I am not seeing any sign of a cross. Either way, both types are No Date pieces, each made from 1559 to 1561. •
And here is the page for your type: •
I believe you have the wrong page. Your piece should actually be of this type, which already has an image: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces33692.html.
On NGC, KM#1279 uses a picture of the modern harbour piece: •
With that being said, the reference number has been removed from the other one.
The proof comment has been changed.
It appears the new year-lines have been added.
Citation: "Coinman48"Based on the year listing the star would appear after JJE on obverse. •
With the French coins having separate mintages for the different alignments, those different alignments were (more than likely) intentional. •
Errors are not intentional, which seems to be the case with this South African piece. And it would be best to keep errors as personal comments on the year-lines.
Oops, I forgot about this. •
The page has been approved (a few days ago now).
Citation: "NumiSerge"But still, the difference in the layout seems to be quite noticeable, so maybe it deserves an own type.I am in agreement with you. I sent a request to create the new page, so... let's see where this goes.
Well, all the requests I submitted to change the wordings were rejected, so... I guess that is not going to change.
No problem! •
The wording has been modified.
It may be easier to just contact the referee about this. •
I sent a PM.
"In Set" lines are separate from "Proof" lines. And in this case, it appears both should be on the page: •
Set: https://www.ebay.ca/itm/Luxembourg-2-euro-2017-Grand-Duke-William-III-BiMetallic-CoinCard-BU/162816234997?hash=item25e89a95f5:g:ZXkAAOSwZrdbN7-f:rk:4:pf:0 •
Proof: https://www.ebay.ca/itm/Luxembourg-Proof-PP-Euro-Set-2017-1-000-sets-only/263493747545?hash=item3d59738359:g:V-YAAOSwdJ9aJPGk:rk:1:pf:0 •
With that being said, I will contact the referee about this (they will be able to add the new year-line).
Citation: "Chilian"I don't think that it is a good thing when we leave duplicates be. 'Who cares...' ? Well, I think it is messy and confusing. It also messes up statistics of the site and of the collector. Besides, if it wouldn't matter to anyone the discussion wouldn't have been started.Agreed! •
Citation: "CassTaylor"maybe "leave as they are" should be added as an option in any vote?I... do not think that would help much. If you take this thread as an example, leaving everything as it is now would basically be a combination of three options (the 5 Cent and 25 Cent pieces only in Curaçao, the 10 Cent piece duplicated under both Suriname and Curaçao, and the 1 Cent piece under the Netherlands). I, personally, would much prefer an option I do not support rather than a little bit of every option because the former would at least be consistent.
Hm... I believe that is just the overstruck-idness (?) that is making it appear like it is a No Date coin. •
The actual date should be below the bust, but that is where remanence of the top FR ET is appearing. Additionally, there is a 9 appearing atop the R of REX, making me think this coin was at least struck three times. But if there is a random 9 on that coin, that would be evidence of there having once been a date, meaning the No Date is a result of the error rather than the coin having been originally struck like that.
What convenient timing for this thread! •
I was planning to post this today or tomorrow, but because of this thread, I will post it today: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic78059.html •
(It is a thread discussing this very issue, only with every denomination. )
I mean, I would not say anything is a done deal without you agreeing--you are the referee, after all. •
And those pictures from Krause definitely look like there is a difference! Here are some close-ups, for anyone who is interested: •
So, if there is definitely a difference, those varieties can definitely remain separate. But before asking people to check their varieties, it would make the most sense to include some sort of pictures (similar to the Krause ones) on the coin's page. That way, there would be an easier way for people to compare their own coins on the same page it is related to before saying what they have. •
And with the dates: even if the dates have nothing to do with this, it would help if we could determine which dates have which varieties. So, looking at the examples on Krause, Sjoelund's examples (which both look like KM#32.2, correct?), and the pictured example on the page, we have: •
1983: KM#32.1 •
1989: KM#32.2 •
I am not sure how much I can help with this, but I have always viewed this as something dependant on the country. •
For Pakistan, they never had a coin that alluded to any sort of ruler, so in their titles, no ruler is indicated on any coin. •
For Russia or the Netherlands, they often had coins which alluded to a monarch, but they also had some coins that gave no indication. If, on those coins that gave no indication of a monarch, the monarch's name was left off the coins' titles, the pages would look incomplete against the rest. •
However, with the British Trade dollar, the title does look complete because of what is in the parentheses (to me, for examples without rulers' names, what is inside can serve as an explanation as to why no ruler is given, which the Trade dollar is a perfect example of). •
For an example of a country I am referee for, if you look under the Livonian Order, some Masters have quite long names, so having a random "1 Schilling (Re[...]
It looks like the referee approved it: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces154664.html.
I, personally, would have no objections moving these to the main catalogue. •
With the coin in question, I merged the pages (and add a 1662 and 1670 date): •
It seems to me like the only difference is the catalogue number, with that catalogue giving a different number per date and variety (although I could not find all numbers). And of course, if there are any objections to the merge, I can always split it back.
I thought this was all agreed upon here: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic77401.html? •
If Yuan and Dollar are the same, I do not see a problem calling these coins Dollars--especially if the currency is revolving around the dollar. •
And on a side note, I do not think the People's Republic of China is a good comparison. They have a different currency than Taiwan, even if the names are similar. Take a look at their Wiki links, for example: •
Notice how the New Taiwan Dollar is never referred to as a Yuan, and that the Renminbi never refers to the word Dollar? Well, kind of--the word "Dollar" is used, but it seems to only be used when referring to foreign Dollar-based currencies. •
And with all that being said, the only anomaly I see is of the "Jiao" coins. Should those not instead be called "Dimes"?
Yes, pictures would definitely help. •
With the differences being so minor, I am not exactly sure why these Type A pieces and these Type B/C pieces have... well, their own pages. Sure, The type A page is for the large head and the Type B/C page is for the small head, but the comments say Type C is actually a large head? I don't know--it confuses me, so contacting the referee may be your best option.
I am in agreement with you, particularly because 1933 does not appear on this site: •
But I do know some Irish proof coins can have very limited quantities, so just in case in that site is wrong, I contacted the referee. They may know something I don't.
Alrighty, step one is done: all coins from the two currencies in question have been moved to the "Nuevo sol (1991-2015)" one.
Danish Estonia: •
Duchy of Estonia, Terra Mariana •
Bishopric of Ösel-Wiek: •
Bishopric of Saare-Lääne, Saare-Lääne Diocese, Ösel-Wiek Diocese •
City of Narva and City of Reval: •
Swedish Estonia, Duchy of Estonia •
Bishopric of Courland: •
Courland Diocese, Livonian Confederation, Terra Mariana •
Duchy of Courland: •
Duchy of Courland and Semigallia •
Bishopric of Dorpat: •
Bishopric of Tartu, Tartu Diocese, Dorpat Diocese, Livonian Confederation, Terra Mariana •
Duchy of Livonia: •
Polish Livonia, Principality of Inflanty, Inflanty •
Livonia, Swedish: •
Svenska Livland, Livland •
Livonian Order: •
Livonian Confederation, Terra Mariana •
Riga, Archbishopric of: •
Archbishopric of Ryga, Bishopric of Ryga, Bishopric of Riga, Riga Diocese, Livonian Confederation, Terra Mariana •
Riga, Free city of: •
Free city of Ryga, Freetown Ryga,[...]
Done. All pages have been split. •
You are using the simple search, correct? •
The problem with the simple search is that, no matter what you type in, all fields will be searched. I mean, it is not usually a problem, but in this case, it is. In regards to Cook Island, there is a currency called "Dollar (1972-date)". With that being said, if you type "Dollar", "1972", or... well, both together, you will get every coin under the currency "Dollar (1972-date)". The solution to that is to use the advanced search--it searches specific fields rather than everything. I cannot see why searching the currency field would be intentional, so it may be an unintended error. •
In regards to the "50 Cents", the problem is... different. The coin you are looking for is 50 Tene, with "Tene" being equal to "Cents". The value on that coin (as well as other Tene coins) is written as "50 Tene (Cents)". If you type "Cents", the search will n[...]
Posté le :
It is not a Numista error--it is a Krause one. •
While Krause tends to separate the 2008 Belgian euros from the 2009 and forward ones, they just... did not do that with the 2 Euro piece. Sequentially, the second type should be KM#302 (which some other coin sites do claim this type to be); however, Krause still calls it KM#281. Of course, it is still a different type regardless of what Krause says (hence the two separate pages), but we should only call the second page KM#302 when Krause fixes their error. •
And here is the topic that first brought this up, if you are interested: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic76096.html.
I feel like more information/testing is needed for a comment like this to be added to the coin's page. While 1971 may be 0.5 millimetres larger, a comment like "1971 is 0.5 millimetres larger than all other years" may not be accurate since coins of 1972-1974 have not been tested. •
Also, exact measurements would be preferred. The page currently says these coins are 25 millimetres, but a smaller coin or a larger coin could have been measured for that (or maybe that is the average). •
So, if you are able to gather more information, I will make a request to add it to the coin's page. But with the information that was provided, I do not think it is enough. But of course, if you really want that information added, I will not stop you from requesting it yourself.
Oh wow, that was fast! •
Alrighty, I will start making these requests under the ticket system... sometime.
Sure! That would definitely be appreciated.
The year-line has been added... kind of. As far as I am aware, we do not have year-lines dedicated to different types of sets, so the year-line was formatted similarly to other pages: the mintage was combined, and which mintage belongs to which set is described in the comments.
Looking at the modification history of the page under Montserrat, the original submission did have pictures, which were of the same type as the one located under Exonumia (it looks like the person who submitted the page later removed those pictures, for some reason). •
With that all being said, I deleted the page under Montserrat. Thank you!
The page in question has been modified, and a new page created: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces155739.html. •
Posté le :
Hm... I must disagree. •
First, this is the page your type belongs to: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces41643.html. •
While the original coins have a low silver content, the Suceava counterfeits have an even lower silver content. From the pictures provided, my first thought was that the tone is closer to one of the counterfeits, and that the first C on the obverse is crude enough to... well, not be from a real piece. Also, the off-strikes are common on both the real pieces and the counterfeit ones, so that is not something that would really help. •
That date would help the most with this. Looking at the date, it ends in a 0. That means this coin should either be dated "40" (and be real), "50" (and be real), or "60" (and be counterfeit). The bottom of the first digit of the date is curved, so not a 4. While the top of the first digit is not visible, the bottom left end is curved up. If that digit was a 5, the end would come to a [...]
Excellent! Thank you very much!
Hm... I think I must agree with Coinman on this. As you said, you must either have the measurements or have the two varieties beside each other. With the pictures on the coin's page, the two varieties are shown beside each other, giving a nice comparison. •
Of course, that is not to say adding measurements is pointless. If you can determine which variety you have using the pictures on the page, something along the lines of this can possibly be added to the page: •
Thin rim: _____ millimetres •
Thick rim: _____ millimetres •
(And insert the 0.85 millimetres into the proper spot.) •
And if the non-0.85 millimetre one is left blank, someone who owns that variety may be able to eventually provide the measurements.
It looks like pictures of the "Delineated neck" have been added to the page (only a few days ago, apparently). It is the one with the pink background under the title "2015 Varieties", so... those should help!
Citation: "BSmith"According to this Numista page, the Vandals used decimal system too, but I don't know how accurate this information is. •
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/vandal_kingdom-1.htmlWhile the coins the Vandals minted had their values divided into 10s, I do not think the system they used was decimal. I mean, technically, if you are only counting the coins they minted, then it would be a decimal system, but the Vandals also used gold coins (solidus and tremissis pieces, mainly). The Vandals themselves did not mint their own gold coins, but rather used those struck by other tribes. And if I recall correctly, within the Vandal Kingdom, 1 solidus was worth 12,000 nummi or so.
If you are interested in Livonian coin, as a general rule, avoid anything minted before 1575. During that year, the mint in Riga got a machine called the Walzerk, which basically worked by placing a sheet of metal through a machine that was like two rolling pins (which had the dies on them). Someone/something would then punch out the resulting patterns. With a process like that, it is not rare for coins to be off-struck, and when the coins are off-stuck, you will not see an empty space outside the main pattern, but rather the beginning of another pattern. •
So, looking at the Livonian places who struck their coins after 1575 more specifically... •
For the Free City of Riga, this type should be the only non-hand-struck one (which also happens to be the most common type): https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces42146.html. •
For the Duchy of Livonia, anything under the Thaler currency should be good, although I cannot confirm the gold coins were struck the same way. U[...]
Citation: "CassTaylor"Just a little thing; shouldn't the 1955-1982 decimalised Cyprus currency be moved to after the 1879-1955 Piastre Cyprus currency? •
Or combined with the one that's dated 1955-2007?When new currencies are created, they tend to appear at the top of the list. So yes, it needs to be moved, and the 1955-2007 one needs to be edited to say 1983-2007. I already made a (currently open) request to do all that, so in time, the currencies should appear properly.
(One example of a page in question: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces4321.html.) •
I sent a message to the referee a while ago, but never received a reply... •
So, I finally had some time to read through a lot of the first link, and here is a comment I would like to quote: •
"Where there is a - in the value column for the proof strikings this is an indication that no proofs are available to collectors - in some of these cases there is a single proof coin known which is in the British Museum's collection having been struck for the Museum by the Royal Mint." •
That was above the "Penny" column. For the pennies, there is a value for 1928 and 1931, with the dates 1933, 1935, and 1937 all having the dash. So those last three probably all have an extremely small amount of proofs. And as for the 1931 ones, I imagine they were not struck for sets. And it seems that is what the PCGS link is talking about (sets rather than individual coins). [...]
Citation: "ngdawa"Like I said in this topic, the locking of year lists is more a hindrance to prevent the catalogue to easily grow and become better, than what it stops error in non-existing dates getting added..I must disagree with you on that--I have ended up rejecting quite a few "add a new year-line" requests. From what I have experienced, the requests are typically dates on a different page. The two major exceptions are if the coins are extremely modern, or if the year-list is genuinely not complete (as in, it is missing quite a few year-lines). •
Anyways, back to the coin in question: in 2018, Romania added a crown atop the eagle's head, which gives all the 2018 coins their own page. The one in question is located here: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces133815.html.
A marten, actually. •
That is a piece from Slavonia (a Hungarian state). Possibly this one: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces33812.html.
Well yes, 1650 definitely does exist as a date for the real pieces, just not for the Suceava counterfeits. The pieces from Suceava usually (but not always) have fictitious dates on them, which means the dates can be a good indicator for whether or not a coin is a counterfeit. Of course, if the date is non-fictitious or is off-flan/mostly off-flan (like the example on this thread), you need to judge the coin on its overall appearance. •
For example, if a coin looks extremely coppery and has crude, inverted letters, it is more than likely a Suceaca piece.
Yours is similar, but not that exact type. It should be this one: •
The different Funck numbers are mentioned in the comments of the date-lines. While Funck gives different numbers for 1920 and for 1921, I think they are of the same type by Numista's standards, so everything should be fine there. •
That aside, a line for Funck#1.10b has been added. Thank you!
Oh yes, I love consistency--that's why I would love to see that page split. But if rules are implied, sometimes implied is not enough. If we can get some set guidelines for a situation like this, I could possibly get this page split. While I will still need the cooperation of the referee, I will at least have a more supported reason to split this page: it is the guidelines. •
With that being said, I do not want to reject this request, but I cannot mark it as done. I will change its status to accepted. That way, if we can get some set guidelines, I will come back to this thread and try again.
Yes, I agree with them all moving to Sweden (for now, at least). •
I will probably start requesting merges, moves, and the addition of the keywords in the comments section sometime tomorrow. Then I will delete the duplicates. •
Well... excluding this coin, because I already sent a request to move it to Sweden: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces144866.html. •
That coin is from Sigtuna, who issued a lot of early coins (more than two million, as the link below says). •
The first Swedish coin: https://destinationsigtuna.se/en/attraktion/swedens-first-coin/ •
The coin in question: https://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=232454
It looks like 2017 has been added: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces40654.html.
The referee wrote back, and I think the reason for rejection makes sense now: the colour is off. While your pictures have more details and are less blurry, the existing ones show a truer colour/tone. •
So I guess if you want the existing pictures to be changed, you are going to have to edit the ones in this thread to appear more copper-like, or take new picture to show the real colour. •
Effort wise, taking new pictures may be easier. I tried editing the pictures, but while the obverse was... fine, I cannot seem to get the reverse to match close enough to my liking. •
I agree that those pictures are not good, but at least they are pictures. •
I cannot seem to find any pictures of this coin online (from an allowable source), so if you really do not like them, the best I can suggest is to sent a request to delete them, then wait for someone else to update the page with new pictures.
If you go to the "Coin Type" drop-down, do you have the "Tokens" and "Patterns" sections unticked? When I untick those boxes, I drop from 10593 coins to 21 coins. •
And back to the ECUs: thank you for that explanation! That makes more sense to me now.
I see the year list has not been unverified, but the Empire of China section has been quite slow lately. While there is nothing I can do about this, I am going to mark this thread as 'accepted'. Other coins from that place have the year list divided into Hartill numbers, so I think dividing this one the same way would make sense.
I would if I could, but currencies are beyond my power. You will have to wait until Jarek see this.
Oh, I get it now! But they are not really duplicates. While they have the same obverses, the reverse descriptions are different. •
For example, KM#712 has a rower and leaves, whereas KM#716 also has a rower, but instead of leaves, it has orchids. •
See here: •
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces76460.html (although this one is missing its KM#) •
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces77522.html (and this one has the wrong KM#) •
I will start sending some requests to add/change those numbers, so it will possibly be slightly less confusing.
Has there been anymore information on this? •
Splitting a page due to such a small difference in weight seems quite odd to me...
Citation: "BramVB"If the year is clear, then there is little extra info to be gained. If there is a more difficult variety to be recognized, I'd prefer to see some good documentation in the comment section so I can easily see the differences. •
I only see this suggestion as a partial and temporary solution for lacking documentation (and a possible cause for more confusion if ticked wrongly). •
I completely agree. •
(And I do not really have anything more than that to add; I am just looking to close some older modification requests.)
Have you sent a request to add that comment? •
It seems to me like that is the only the Nicaraguan coin that says Estado rather than Republica (please correct me if I am wrong), so I think adding such a comment to that page would be a nice explanation.
Thank you very much for adding all of these, Jarek!
Yes, that looks better. Thank you for the correction! •
Yup, Bona# works. •
The Empire of China section has been pretty slow lately, but I agree, they should be translated. •
Now, translations are something anyone can make a request for (since editing the French title does not affect the English title, and vise versa). With that being said, if you want to make these changes, it may take a while for the referee to get to them. And if, after a week, the referee does not deal with them, I can take a look at the requests, if you want.
Agreed. I sent a request to merge the two pages, so when that happens, I will delete the duplicate.
Also, please add this one: •
Catalogue of Late Roman Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection •
Philip Grierson, Melinda Mays •
Washngton, D.C. 1992. •
And this is the last catalogue on my list of 'catalogues to add', by the by.
And another that will help with the Burgundian Kingdom: •
The Barbaric Tremissis in Spain and Southern France - Anastasius to Leovigild •
Wallace J. Tomasini •
ANSNNM 152, 1964 •
The moving of collections/deleting of years is done.
No problem. Mistakes happen.
The collections have been moved. •
And as for the title change, with the differences being the edges (which is not something you can possibly see a picture of/read about until you open a new page), indicating the difference in the title could be beneficial, but I think the comments section also works. And with the link to the other variety located in the "See also" section, if you happen to start on the wrong page, the correct page is just one click away.
A no-date line has been added.
Taiwan, 5 Jiao, 1967. •
And to end on an even number, please add this one as well: •
Description générale des monniaes Byzantines •
Justin Sabatier •
2 Vols. Paris, 1863. •
(And no, this is not the last reference book to add--it is just the last one for now. )
And please add this one: •
Les émissions monétaires d'Arles (4th -5th Siècles) •
Georges Depeyrot •
Wetteren, 1996 •
And for the Herulians, please add this one: •
Moneta Mediolanensis (352-498) •
Oscar Ulrich-Bansa •
Venice, 1949 •
Please add this one as well (some Burgundian coins have this one): •
Description générale des monnaies mérovingiennes •
Auguste de Belfort •
5 Vols. Paris, 1895 •
And this one: •
La fin de L'Empire Romain et le monayage or en Italien •
Guy Lacam •
Lucern, 1983 •
Time for some more! •
Please add this one: •
Monnaies des Empires de Byzance - Collection of N.K. •
Serge Boutin •
Maastricht, 1983 •
And this one too: •
Coins from the Time of the Avars in Hungary •
Jónás Elemér •
Journal of the Society for Ancient Numismatics, Vol. XXI, 2002 •
Also, please add this one: •
Gold Coins of the World: From Ancient Times to the Present, 8th edition •
Arthur L. Friedberg, Ira S. Friedberg •
Clifton, NJ, 2009 •
Huh. Now that's a weird looking thing. •
I can confidently say this is not a genuine piece from Swedish Livonia--I am thinking a counterfeit. Beneath the cross, there are some crude crossed keys, making the overall design similar to the solidus pieces from the Swedish occupation of Riga. With that being said, the monogram on the other side is just plain wrong, and the surrounding legend appears to be nonsensical. •
The closest match in Livonia is this one, which is what I believe this piece is trying to imitate: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces31474.html. •
With that being said, there is a date-line dedicated to the "17th century forgeries" that were struck in Suceava. If your piece is a counterfeit, it does not look like the types that line is meant for. The pieces struck at Suceava vary in their crudeness, but even the crudest ones do not look like your piece (link: https://www.numisbids.com/n.php?p=sale&sid=1881&cid=49526).
Huh. Guess I missed that. •
And last one (for now). •
Le Monete della Zecca di Salerno •
Lucio Bellizia •
Libreria Ar, Salerno, 1992 •
And this one: •
Monnaies byzantines •
I. Tolstoi •
St. Petersburg, 1913-1914 •
This one as well: •
Monnaies Byzantines ed d'autre Pays contemporaines à l'époque byzantine •
Rodolfo Ratto •
Lugano, 1930 •
Perfect! Thank you very much!
Thank you very much! I will definitely look into that place! •
(And my apologies for the belated response--I didn't realize anyone responded to this thread.)
I agree with it probably being Indian, but that is as far as I have come. Mysore seems like a more likely match than Travancore, but I have still not been able to find a close enough match. •
With the only major design element being dots, I am not sure if finding a match will be possible...
And the last one (well, for now): •
Il Tremisse de Ariperto con Iffo e Lerime Monete Beneventane •
Repertorio G. Sambon, L. Laffranchi •
Rassegna Numismatica, 1934 •
And as per the last thread, please add this catalogue: •
Moneta Langobardorum •
Ernesto Bernareggi •
Milan, Cisalpino Goliardica, 1983 •
Also, here is another Bernareggi one that is sometimes used: •
Problemi di Numismatica Longobarda: La Monetazione di Re Astolfo a Ravenna •
Ernesto Bernareggi •
Instituto Italiano di Numismatica. Annali Vol. 15, 1968 •
Well, references. But they are all related, so hopefully that is alright. •
There is already a reference called "Moneta Imperii Byzantini", and it has the catalogue initial "MIB#". This is not the only MIB catalogue, so please change the initial to: •
MIB I# •
And please add the following two references: •
Moneta Imperii Byzantini, Volume 2: Justinus II - Phocas (565 - 610) •
Wolfgang Hahn •
Vienna, 1975 •
MIB II# •
Moneta Imperii Byzantini, Volume 3: Heraclius - Leo III (610 - 720) •
Wolfgang Hahn •
Vienna, 1981 •
And... another. •
Studio Sulle Monete della Zecca di Salerno •
Remo Cappelli •
Stabilimento Staderini, Rome, 1972 •
Please add the following reference: •
Analysis of the Gold Coinage of Beneventum •
W. A. Oddy •
Numismatic Chronicle, s. VII, 14, 1974 •
I agree-they are genuine. •
Looking at the entire run of schillings from the Free city or Riga, I would say 1575 is the second most common date (with 1577 being the most by a small margin). But that aside, with the first two, all elements seem to be correct. And I must say: for the second one, I love the rotation of the 5! •
The last one looks like it is the inverted date version of some date (so either LL or 8L--I can only see the last upside-down 7). Of the inverted types, 1578 is harder to find; 1577 is not. Still, all design elements look correct.
I mean, even if I want to request to add a year, I cannot. Like the comment beneath the year-list says: "most requests to add new year entries are sent for the wrong coin type." The referees most likely know what they are doing, and if you contact them, they can either add the year themselves, or mark the year list as un-varified, which means you can then request a new year (or, of course, they can direct you to the correct page, if yours is actually of a different type). •
Now, onto the coin in question. From the pictures, I think it looks like the nickel plated steel version, and those types are not magnetic, so your type should actually be of this type: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces9524.html. •
And you can find an explanation here (since this has apparently been brought up before): https://en.numista.com/forum/topic25147.html.
Not exactly. As with the title, one is a "Silver 5oz Bullion". While the regular silver proof has a diameter of 24.3 millimetres, the bullion coin has a diameter of 76.2 millimetres.
Hm... I don't think they are the same. The lettering of the obverse starts at the bottom for the first one, and the top for the second one. The first one is also missing the "50 PENCE" in the legend.
So it this with the location the first coins were minted at in regards to modern-day countries? If so, I can (probably) do the Baltics. •
Estonia: 1219 (minted at Revel for Danish Estonia): https://en.numista.com/catalogue/estonia_danish-1.html. •
Lithuania: 1252 (minted at Memel for the Bishopric of Courland): https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces140840.html. •
Latvia: this one is a little harder. Mints in Piltene, Dorpat, and Riga would be the best contenders, but there is some uncertainty about the date of the earliest coin minted at Riga (for the Bishopric of Riga). Even so, the earliest it could have been was 1199 (https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces139635.html). •
However, if that coin was actually minted under Nikolaus's reign, the earliest date would have been 1229. That means two coins minted at Dorpat for the Bishopric of Dorpat actually have an earlier date-range, starting in 1224 (here is one: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces143257.[...]
I have looked into Turku before, and the problem I kept coming across was that I could not find any source that stated/implied Åbo mint coins were only meant to circulate in Turku. The sources I found kept listing them like any other mint of Sweden, and I do not think these coins being from a foreign mint is enough proof the coins were actually meant to circulate locally. •
Here is a .pdf about Swedish coins I sometimes go to (it is 78 pages): http://www.numismatas.com/Forum/Pdf/David%20Ruckser/Coins%20of%20Sweden.pdf •
Some Åbo mint coins are on page 24, but they are formatted the same as mints like Stockholm or Vasteras. I would except there to be something different, since with the Gotlandic coins on page 7 (and the one on page 37), they mention Gotland in the title, as well as under where they say "Sweden". •
Of course, that is just one example. Have been able to find anything that says otherwise? If so, I would really like to read it! •
That is not from Livonia, but rather the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. On the reverse, I can read "LIT", meaning it would be a piece minted at Vilnius; on the upside-down obverse, I can read "SIG", meaning it was made under the ruler Sigismund III Vasa. •
The date is hard to read. Only the two last digits are shown, with the first being a 2 (or rather a Z), but the last... maybe it is a 0? I am not so sure. •
Anyways, it should be this coin: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces126670.html. •
(And I am not sure what it would be worth.)
Citation: "CassTaylor" •
Thank you so much Sulfur!! •
No problem! •
Every link has now have been dealt with.
Alrighty, the two pages have now been merged. Thank you!
I thought mules were minting errors? •
Either way, I would think to keep mules as separate pages. And here is a thread discussing the reasoning for that: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic65420.html.
Caria and Thracian Islands have had some coins added to them, but they are now appearing at the top of Ancient Greece's currency list. Please alphabetize them into the rest of the currencies. •
Yes, the slashes seem to be working again now. Thank you very much!
I have not been able to identify this coin, so I thought I would post it here to see if anyone recognizes it. •
It is 3.16 grams, around 12 millimetres in diameter, and around 3 millimetres thick. •
And thank you for reading!
I was contemplating which way to turn the reverse picture. Guess I picked the wrong way. Thank you for the correction! •
Oh wow, I would have never found that on my own! I will request its page to be added under the Zengid Dynasty. Thank you very much!
Not sure what issuer I lost, but... •
294. Free imperial city of Aachen (German State). •
And yesterday, I received 21 unidentified coins. Out of the nine I have identified so far, eight were new places (I already had Gwaior). So... •
295. Sultanate of Bijapur (Indian State). •
296. Abbasid Caliphate (Islamic State). •
297. Byzantine Empire (And my 208th country). •
298. Vijayanagara Empire (Indian State). •
299. Sultanate of Bahmani (Indian State). •
With Maratha not yet being split from the Indian States section, and with nothing being spit from Ancient India (Kushan and the Mauryan Empire, in my case), that is what I have so far.
I find the Tokens section easier to navigate because of everything being listed by country. If that section was changed so everything reflect the current Exonumia style, I feel like things would get pretty chaotic. Exonumia only has six categories, but the Tokens section would have way more than that (If I counted correctly, there seems to be 30 just up to the "D" countries). •
With Exonumia, I do like how everything works with listing the fantasy issuers. I find the current layout for Exonumia works for Exonumia; however, if too many more categories are going to be added to that section, it could turn pretty confusing. •
Overall, I would say I like the layout of the Tokens section more.
Ah, I see. Alrighty then.
Alrighty. I will store any ones I add under Ösel-Wiek because... well, it was mostly an island. And Gotland is an island. So... yea. •
And here is their first coin (on Numista): •
Citation: "CassTaylor" •
Thank you very much! •
Yes, you are correct about the .png ending. I've since changed it to .jpg (which is what is pending approval as I type), but did not notice a decrease in resolution. •
The 413 request error (or whatever it's called exactly) occurs as a screen when you try to upload an image thats too large to a Numista page; it says "request too big" or something like that. •
No problem! •
JPEG images are of a slightly less resolution, but for most photographed images, the difference is so insignificant that I cannot tell the difference between a JPEG and a PNG just by looking at them. To see an obvious difference, draw a circle in a paint program and save it as a PNG and as a JPEG. If you then take each image and fill the centre with a colour, you can see the difference: •
(Left is JPEG; right is PNG.) •
PNG completely perseveres all pixels, whereas JPEG[...]
Yeah, I agree: not a fixed date. •
But if a Medieval section was created, I feel like there would be more confusion. Right now, it is just a matter of what is ancient and what is not; if there was a Medieval section, it would be Ancient vs. Medieval and Medieval vs. Modern. •
Now, when it comes to Medieval coins, I often hear they are classified as coins before 1600. While splitting issuers between that date might be... not difficult, I would not want to see some places moved to completely different sections. Take Livonia, for example: the Livonian Order's last coins were minted in 1561; Swedish Livonia's first coins were minted in 1621. Those places would be easy to separated, but I would prefer to see them together. But that may just be me. •
So what if the "Ancient Coins" section was renamed to "Ancient and Early Medieval Coins"? No new sections are created and no specific date is given, meaning "Early Medieval" would be vague enou[...]
Posté le :
Coin identifications and valuations
I feel like nothing we say can convince the OP of something other than they want to hear, but... •
At 22 millimetres, and with is supposedly being a gold coin, this would be a 100 Kurus piece. On Ottoman coins, there are four different things that can be to the right of the toughra (flowers, nothing, el-Ghazi, and Reshat). Yours has the flowers. Beneath the toughra should be the regnal, which is not there. Combine the regnal year with the frozen date, and you get the actual date the coin was made in, so the regnal year is pretty significant. So significant that many imitations even include them (even if they tend to all be fictitious). •
Alright, so onto the obverse. It is completely wrong for any existing Ottoman coin. No frozen date; no mint. •
But either way, here are the options you can chose from that are currently listed on Numista. Remember, only the ones with the flowers even have a chance at being yours : •
This is not a type of coin I have ever dealt with, but... •
The two pictures used in Krause look so identical to each other, I am pretty sure they are the same coin. They have the same grime-dot to the left of the person's hair-bun, the same line under the SA in ELISA, and the same shine above the second C in LUCCA. •
Your coin, however, looks different from the coin in Krause. Look at the end of Elisa's bust. In Krause, Felix's bust touches the end; on yours, the end is not touching anything. That being said, whatever type is actually being shown in Krause, I would think yours to be of the other. •
The pictures on NGC are actually of different coins, if you would like to compare those: •
Now, do you recognize the[...]
The second one has the date 1996 written on it, meaning it is from around 1939 in the Gregorian calendar. There are two types listed on this page: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces15576.html, but the types have different diameters, so there is only one yours can be. •
For the first one, I think I am reading 1972 at the bottom of the reverse, which would be around 1915 in the Gregorian calendar (https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces44609.html). •
I find this link helps with dating Nepalis coins, by the by: http://creounity.com/apps/time_machine/index.php?go=nepal.php&lang=en. Along with being a calendar converter, it has (what I assume to be) all the different styles of the numbers to chose from.
Ferdings are larger, and they have dates. The page for the 2 schilling piece, which this definitely appears to be, is located here: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces140670.html •
And here is a screen-shot from my Fedorov catalogue (click to enlarge): •
Aside from the pictures in Fedorov, I have not been able to find pictures of this coin anywhere. Can I use your coin for its page? The displayed copyright would be to killeriux45, or whatever else you want to appear there. This, like many picture-less coins under the Livonian section, was page I was going to draw the image for, but using an actual picture would look nicer, and would be much easier.
That looks like a Japanese 1 mon piece. It might be this one, but this is definitely not an area I have much experience in: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces121454.html
Every site I look at seems to say the dies were recut for 1955, which makes me think there were more details for the later year. It also looks like the 2015 Krause describes the later strikes with having the "fish with big eye" in the notes section under the date-line (which would also mean it is the later strikes that have more details). •
I am starting to think Numista's page has which detail goes to which year mixed up. I know my example is currently listed as 1951, but according to practically every other site, it should actually be from 1955: •
Also, from what I have seen (and what is evident is this thread), the coins with more det[...]
Alrighty. When I created a page for that brakteat, I will keep it under the Duchy of Courland until the Bishopric gets created. •
Although now I feel like asking: how old is the link on forumancientcoins? It says the second part will be available in 2011, so it may not be that new. It looks like that may be a Haljak catalogue--the 2010 one used as a reference catalogue here, maybe?
I think some sort of value-control may be beneficial, but if referees have total control, the values members put in might turn out to be useless. I am not sure if this would be possible to implement (or if it is even a good idea), but it was just something I was thinking of: •
What if referees were allowed to add, at most, four different values for a specific date/grade? That way, coins that no one (or only one or two or three) people own would be able to have a value displayed, the higher-values-for-lower-grades situations could potentially be avoided (for at least some coins), and if other members start to add their own values, the values chosen by the referees would still be calculated in the median, meaning the values they chose would not necessarily be the ones displayed.
207 countries; 290 issuers.
Now that each place under Estonia has been created, and each place has their proper flag, it is time to discus their ordering. As I stated somewhere above, I can see two ways of things being ordered. The first is just listing them, like what it currently is: •
And the other way is with using sub-sections: •
The second way looks more extensive, but I, personally, like it more. Partially for the historical accuracy, partially for the grouping of the flags' colours.
I was thinking the coat of arms might be better for Ösel-Wiek to match the other bishoprics, but the Danish flag would work just as well.
Alright, the requests have been sent to add dual-names.
Spanish blanca. •
Alrighty, both have been moved and approved. Thank you!
Working on Medieval Lettering/Description, Section E. •
There are currently 845 coins listed from the United States. If you only search the word Dollar, you will get 845 results. That is probably because Dollar is in the currency name. Even so, I cannot seem to find where the 10 is located on the 1 cent coin's page. Stranger yet, when I do the same search on the French version, the cent disappears from the results. •
But what may help is by placing 10 Dollars in quotation marks. That way, the search will bring up results with the phrase "10 Dollars" rather than results with both "10" and "Dollars". •
Citation: "neilithicman" •
Citation: "pnightingale"Shall we also change UK to "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"? •
That just trips off the tongue eh? •
Of course we'd then have to create a seperate listing for coins issued by the Kingdon of Great Britain 1707 - 1800. •
Or maybe we could continue using the commonly undertood and widely used "UK" and "Ivory Coast" so that people using the catalog won't be needing to trot over to Wikipedia to find out what name we're using this month?And Australia should be "Commonwealth of Australia" and thusly moved from A to C on the country list. Gambia should be changed to "Islamic Republic of The Gambia" and moved from G to I on the country list. It may be tricky for a novice collector to find, but at least everything will be nice and official.Actually, using Australia's title ([...]
Backstory: I have recently been looking into coins from Reval (a place under Estonia), and have found they made quite a few more coins than what is listed on Numista. The problem has been finding pictures from approved sources. When it comes to Reval/Livonia coins, Haljak Coin Auctions seems to have many pictures, but they are not on the list of approved sources. •
Anyways, I stumbled upon this place called Narva, which has issued a few different coins. It is not a place on the catalogue yet, and should be under Estonia. I requested two coins to be added because an approved source had pictures: •
(The requests are still pending, but as of posting this, they are not even an hour old.) •
So my question is about these coins' currencies. I added a new one for those two coins, and it is only called Estonia - Narva. Looking at NGC's entr[...]
The reason there is a different count is because the Indian states are being split. Take mine, for example: •
The count says I have 7 coins from Indian states, yet goes on to list 11 coins. Those are two different counts—I have 18 Indian states coins. The states that are listed have been split, so they all count as separate issuers. I also have coins from the Gurjar-Pratihara Dynasty, Hyderabad, Jodhpur, Junagadh, Kangra Kingdom, Kashmir, and Mysore, but those places have yet to be split from the Indian states section. Because those 7 places have not been split, they are what makes up my "Indian States and Kingdoms" coin count. •
When a country gets split, the newly-created country gets removed from the map. My map says I only have 7 coins from the Indian states; the other 8 still need to be added.
One solution would be to hide the patterns. If you click the "Coin type" tab and un-check Patterns, all pattern coins will disappear. Looking at Pakistan specifically, un-checking the Pattern option drops that country's total coin count from 128 to 83. •
In regards to the current map, every country is supposed to be shown on it. But with the changes in the site's country list, everything is being... different. Take the German states, for example. As far as I know, every one of those states has been separated from the country 'German states', with each coin you own from a different state counting as a different issuer. However, when each place gets split from a different place, they are no longer shown on the map—they need to be added separately (and with the German states, some are on the map, while others are not). And the mapping of the countries is what this thread is for: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic62471.html. •
(I hope that all makes some sense. ) •
The changes suggested in the above link have not been updated in a while, but I posted the areas for the Mongol states around six month ago, meaning Timurid should eventually show up on the map, but I am not sure when. Baktria will probably be separated from Ancien[...]
If you click on someone else's profile, and you view their collection, you can see all the prices they added. Of course, it only works on the profiles that allow others to view their collection, but I find it a little unsettling that the values are there.
I think these are all my coins with a Numista Rarity of 97 (with none of them being worth much, as far as I am aware): •
Canada: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces91143.html. •
China (Ancient): https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces134840.html. •
China - Empire: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces122869.html. •
China - Empire: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces118721.html. •
Habbari Dynasty: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces131890.html. •
Hungary: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces74674.html. •
Hungary: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces51235.html. •
Ottoman Empire: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces119336.html. •
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces130740.html. •
Riga - Archbishopric: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces130682.html. •
Rome (Ancient): https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces128924.html. •
United Kingdom: https://en[...]
Right now, I am finding the update interesting. I will give it time before I make any of my own opinions, but I do have a couple questions: •
1) For the values of the coins, would it be possible to indicate a coin is only worth its bullion value? That way, the value would already be displayed at the bottom of the page, and one would not have to be constantly changing the value to match what its base metal is worth. •
2) Would it be possible to add values to coins I do not have in my collection? Take this one schilling piece from the Free City of Riga, for example: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces42146.html. Although I am putting together a date set of that type (with thirteen different ones so far), I only have one date marked in my collection. Right now, I would only be able to plug in the value of 1577, which is the most common date. I have a 158L one which I know is worth more, and I do not have a 1574 one which I know is worth even more. And this is not the onl[...]
Alright, good to know. Thank you for your replies, doc_man and CassTaylor!
Hm... I was thinking: •
1) UNC. •
2) UNC. •
3) AU. •
4) AU. •
5) EF. •
6) VF. •
7) EF. •
8) F. •
9) EF. •
10) AU+. •
11) EF. •
12) AU. •
13) UNC. •
14) VF. •
15) AU. •
That type of coin is already in the catalogue. Its page can be found here: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces42146.html •
Posté le :
Citation: "JustforFun" •
Citation: "radrick007"If you hover your mouse over the 'Catalogue' at the upper left of the page, you should then see a drop-down menu and can click on 'Latest coins'.One of those great features that I use very rarely... anyone knows what is the term for Latest? e.g. 1 month, 3 months, etc? •
If I am not mistaken, it is seven days. •
When clicking the tab, it will say /new7/ in the search bar. Changing that number will change the amount of days. So, if you want to see the newest coins added within a month, just change that to /new30/
With there being 56 Italian states, and half needed with flags to add said flags, that means 28 are needed. And, just counting the different states with flags posted so far, there are 24 on this thread. So four more are needed! •
And if anyone is interested, here are the places still needing flags: •
Avignon, Archbishopric of •
Castiglione Delle Stiviere •
Castro, Duchy of •
Corsica, Republic of •
Fosdinovo, Marquisate of •
Guastalla, Duchy of •
Lombardy, Kingdom of •
Massa Di Lunigiana •
Mirandola, Duchy of •
Piacenza, Duchy of •
Piedmont, Republic of •
Pisa, Republic of •
Siena Republic •
State of the Presidi •
Citation: "SRV5490"My map shows five islands in that same area as German New Guinea and I'm not including New Guinea and its many islands. I've refreshed and reloaded.Oh yea, I completely forgot about German New Guinea! This all may be my fault then. •
To quote myself from the CSIP thread: •
"German New Guinea: right now, it only seems to be highlighted in Papua New Guinea's area; however, it should also be highlighted in the areas of Marshall Islands, Naru, Palua, and Solomon Islands. The areas of Micronesia and the Northern Mariana Islands should also be highlighted, but these two countries do not have coins, meaning I do not even know if an area for them exists. So, can two more dots be created on this map just for German New Guinea? I hope so, because..." •
I forget if dots already existed when I posted that, or if they were created because of it. But from the sounds of that post, it was probably the later. So, to avoid any farther confus[...]
From Afghanistan, I have a 100 afghanis note from 1991: •
Citation: "dltcoins"It's a samanta deva derivative type but that doesn't much narrow the field of possibilities. Unfortunately, key portions of the design which would enable a specific attribution are off flan.Aw, that is disappointing. Well, thank you!
Citation: "Gimme Some Money!"I haven't entered my USSR coins yet, but I imagine the same goes for these. (With he exception of Finland of course) •
Looking at the map of my collection, the coins from the Soviet Union are included in fifteen different countries (fourteen excluding Russia). And, of course, Finland is not one of those countries.
Hmm... I had no idea such a thing existed at the bottom of my "Your Coins" page. But I guess this bug is also affecting me—all countries I own are marked with a zero.
If a dropdown list does not work, a way to make it slightly less confusing (though not much smaller) may be to change the commas in the country names to dashes. Right now, I am reading a lot of countries called "Duchy of," "City of," "County of," and so on. Using semi-colons to separate the countries would make the list grammatically correct, but I think adding dashes would be simpler—just like how "France - Kingdom" or "China - Empire" are named. That way, there would be more consistency (with the countries that already use dashes), no need for semi-colons, and much less of the word "of."
If the coin is worth ten dollars minimum (like the picture above says), what if there is just an extremely small amount of gold? Using this site, two grams of 24k gold would be around 80 dollars; divide that by eight to get ten dollars, so divide two grams by eight to get 0.25 grams of gold in that coin. So, 0.25 divided by the total two grams means a .125 gold purity? Now, those calculations may be completely wrong, but assuming the purity is actually around that amount, would the gold even be visible? The pictures the NGC link provides looks more coppery than gold, but maybe that is because the amount of gold is so low? •
Disclaimer: I do not know much about precious metals and purity amounts, so even if that makes sense to me, I could still be very wrong.
Looks like I lost 48 countries. •
I do like how the names of some things are changing, though. I was hopping Riga - Free City, and Riga - Archbishopric would change to match how they are named in my collection (with Riga first). Now I just need to hope that Swedish Livonia changes to Livonia - Swedish.
Citation: "pejounet"Hi Sulfur, •
Please have a look now for your coins of Archpishopric of Riga, Free City of Riga and Swedish Livonia. You should now be able to see them on the map. •
I'll have a look at others over the weekend.Yup, those three countries are showing up now! Thank you!
In the advanced search, typing in "Silver" in the metal section also shows me all of my billon coins. It seem if I remove one of my billon coins, my amount of silver coins in the "Your Coins" tab does not go down.
V - Vanuatu (1 vatu from 1999): •
Alright; good to know! Thank you!
Thank you very much! •
I was also wondering about weather or not the third digit is actually a five. I was thinking a five at first, but most of the few sites I looked at listed it as being a zero (in fact, I think the one I linked above was the only site to call it 1253). Zeno specifically has a lot of these coins on their site, and all of their coins of this type are listed as 1203. Someone did question it on this page though: https://www.zeno.ru/showphoto.php?photo=180322
With 1,080,000,000 minted, here is 1 yuan from Taiwan, 1981: •
Up next: 100 million to 1 billion.
On a circulating commemorative Canadian coin, a lot of the background lines are covered by the design, but I can count 14 in total. And if one were to count the 25 cents, De Salaberry, and 1812 as separate lines, that would push this coin up to 17 lines total. •
The top right one looks like 2000 rials from Iran, 2010, found here: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces21215.html •
The bottom left one looks like 50 rials from Iran, though I cannot read the date. This one: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1686.html