Can we please go back to where we identify the coin reference with the KM number first (where they exist).
Although Krause stopped issuing new KM numbers (for now I hope, Is anyone asking Bertelman to restart this?) I see that Numista starts to use eg Schon (Andorra) or F (France) or L (Luxembourg) even if a KM exist. This makes it more difficult and time consuming to process new items as the swap list are also reflexting this.
Krause is still by far the greatest reference number used worldwide and we should keep it first for our reference identification.
Personally, I don't support this. I think it should be up to the referees to define the order of the references according to their relevance for a specific issuer.
Maybe KM is okay for some countries, but for others, it is really lacking.
I have never used an auction house in my 60 years as a collector, but nobody says the the Auction numbers should not( be there, just not in the first position
Citation: "radrick007"We should have consistency across the Numista catalogue, not each referee deciding to do their own thing - that is a recipe for disaster.
Totally agree, every referee should follow a general guideline, not doing their own things.
Citation: "BMPJ"Can we please go back to where we identify the coin reference with the KM number first (where they exist).
Although Krause stopped issuing new KM numbers (for now I hope, Is anyone asking Bertelman to restart this?) I see that Numista starts to use eg Schon (Andorra) or F (France) or L (Luxembourg) even if a KM exist. This makes it more difficult and time consuming to process new items as the swap list are also reflexting this.
Krause is still by far the greatest reference number used worldwide and we should keep it first for our reference identification.
Best Regards.
BMPJ
While Krause may be good with modern-day issuers, they are not so good with the older issuers (specifically thinking about the places I am referee for, at least).
Their Livonian/Livonian-related sections are very bad--the City of Reval has description errors and duplicates. And while the Chinese cash coins are not that bad, they are still not good (very generalized, and I once found they catalogued a counterfeit type). For my countries, there are many sources that are way better than Krause, so the position of Krause within the reference section reflects that.
On some pages, the only reason I even include Krause numbers is because it is a popular source. And if Krause was forced to be the first reference, I would even prefer to not list Krause at all--I could probably fill the list of sources with better catalogues, anyways.
Citation: "Sulfur"I very much do not support this.
While Krause may be good with modern-day issuers, they are not so good with the older issuers (specifically thinking about the places I am referee for, at least).
Their Livonian/Livonian-related sections are very bad--the City of Reval has description errors and duplicates. And while the Chinese cash coins are not that bad, they are still not good (very generalized, and I once found they catalogued a counterfeit type). For my countries, there are many sources that are way better than Krause, so the position of Krause within the reference section reflects that.
On some pages, the only reason I even include Krause numbers is because it is a popular source. And if Krause was forced to be the first reference, I would even prefer to not list Krause at all--I could probably fill the list of sources with better catalogues, anyways.
So that's your opinion, is your opinion counting more because you are a referee? I'm a long time collector and I don't see why a referee's subjective opinion should count more than anybody's else.
Sorry, you're are just a collector as well.
No hard feelings, but that kind of argumentation dons't hold. KM# should be still in first place and then your opinion can decide the order of the other reference numbers.
Citation: "Sjoelund"So that's your opinion, is your opinion counting more because you are a referee? I'm a long time collector and I don't see why a referee's subjective opinion should count more than anybody's else.
Sorry, you're are just a collector as well.
It is 100% my opinion--you are exactly correct with that.
Citation: "Sjoelund"No hard feelings, but that kind of argumentation dons't hold. KM# should be still in first place and then your opinion can decide the order of the other reference numbers.
Just like how this statement is your opinion. In fact, this is also your opinion:
Citation: "Sjoelund"I agree fully
-----
I never said my opinion mattered more than anyone else's--I was just stating my opinion because I disagree with this thread. I do not see anything wrong with that.
Citation: "Sjoelund"Democracy please
And I really do not see how me voicing my opinion goes against democracy. I'd even argue that me being able to disagree with this thread supports that this is, in fact, a democracy.
KM#s being first cannot possibly be a fact--people can only have opinions on why they think it should or should not be first.
And it is my opinion that KM#s should not be forced to always be first. Krause is not the best source for every single country (like Livonia and the Chinese Empire, which are very poor within Krause), and I would hate for Krause to appear before much better resources like Haljak or Hartill just because Krause is more popular.
How about placing on the 1st place the Reference where ratio of number of referenced coins vs number of all coins (within certain state) is closest to 1 (or 100%)?
In case KM# is not going to be updated in the future and some other reference will fill the gap, then its only logical for KM# to step down from the throne.
I am just saying, let the "best man win", and let us not be guided by our habits. I guess this sounds more simple than it truly is.
For all those who are "married" with KM#, I would propose that you yourself make your own list of KM# references, where the one and only KM# has stopped. Try Excel, you will find wonders what it can do...
Or maybe even propose to the new owner of KM# to join forces with Numista.
LP
I wish you a nice Sunday for collectors all over the planet.
Is this supposed to be a frog -mouse war? I think time is on and we need to think ahead.
a, It comes first for me ,create your own system, simple and understandable ,and replace all, country code coin number - QR, barcode , new identification technologies with description of variants according to national catalogs. That should be our short-term goal to pick the biggest brains here, and create a system design simplicity - intelligibility. Google is already referring to NUMISTA, so why not !!
b, Always give the best and most affordable coin catalog regardless of the owner -availability and not the interests of society publisher.
I am a generation that had to draw information in the library The world-famous catalog I could not afford financiall times was beyond my means and I think today it still applies to the states and countries where we have the largest number of members.
Krause Publication is full of error - I recommend using the best source possible. The current system is sufficient for this task.
Coins dated 1935 or its equivalent including No Dates.
I am currently looking for the following coins, you can view, them on my webpage: https://coinwishlist.weebly.com/
Currently, official stance is that most comprehensive reference should be used. While KM is quite nice for some modern nations, it struggles further back in time it goes. Some Livonian coins for example have KM numbers, but Krause is so wrong there that I fully agree it should not be first reference there. Or Luxembourg, where we have better catalogue for all L. coins and we use KM as complementary.
This foruming about KM# is becoming truly rather dull. Can we please at least start a debate on how the enumeration rules should be set up, and we set up our own Numista standard. Based on the magnitude of daily entries there is no doubt, that in couple of years if not sooner, large parts of the world will be using Numista as a reference. I am not saying it should be done tomorrow, but at least lets start to talk over basics. Such standard could also help to bring more income to the page admins, hence our common hobby would grow even more...
Citation: "mikimaus"This foruming about KM# is becoming truly rather dull. Can we please at least start a debate on how the enumeration rules should be set up, and we set up our own Numista standard. Based on the magnitude of daily entries there is no doubt, that in couple of years if not sooner, large parts of the world will be using Numista as a reference. I am not saying it should be done tomorrow, but at least lets start to talk over basics. Such standard could also help to bring more income to the page admins, hence our common hobby would grow even more...
Can it be so hard?
Have a nice day.
exactly accurate, logical, the sooner the better!
argument :small number of coins and mainly historical ones . It needs to be solved -Many collectors have coin -tokens that are not yet on the web. They are discouraged by the lengthy, sometimes idle process in historic states.
Give the judges the opportunity to choose helpers 1-3 active enthusiasts in the Jung function - aspirant advisor who prepares and inspects . I think especially the old countries would be useful.
,,Google will offer search engines information based on a search algorithm,,
Give a suggestion to the creation of the numbering and code creation -there are a lot of brains here.
Many countries make excellent coin and banknote catalogues but there are only few publications that cover the world. There are also hundreds of books covering special eras (Olympic coins, Roman coins etc)
Krause is a publication that covers the whole world. It is not perfect or always accurate. Also they do not have a robust service team that you can contact for corrections or improvements. They either restart giving new numbers and updating their catalogue or we should contemplate issuing our own Numista numbers. That would be a huge undertaking but time is on our side as more and more young collectors use the computer only.
Citation: "BMPJ"Many countries make excellent coin and banknote catalogues but there are only few publications that cover the world. There are also hundreds of books covering special eras (Olympic coins, Roman coins etc)
Krause is a publication that covers the whole world. It is not perfect or always accurate. Also they do not have a robust service team that you can contact for corrections or improvements. They either restart giving new numbers and updating their catalogue or we should contemplate issuing our own Numista numbers. That would be a huge undertaking but time is on our side as more and more young collectors use the computer only.
Wishing all a great weekend,
BMPJ
Correct! Xavier recently put out another thread over renewing Numista page. Well "Numista" reference could be next major step in page evolution.
LP
Citation: "stratocaster"Hello,
Personally, I don't support this. I think it should be up to the referees to define the order of the references according to their relevance for a specific issuer.
Best
The Brazilian KM#663 Bentes current # is C25 (which stands for the 25th /C/ommemorative non-circulating coin released), but the Uruguayan referee insists in using an outdated website info.
So, how do we do if the referee don't even have the correct country catalog?
Citation: "BMPJ"Many countries make excellent coin and banknote catalogues but there are only few publications that cover the world. There are also hundreds of books covering special eras (Olympic coins, Roman coins etc)
Krause is a publication that covers the whole world. It is not perfect or always accurate. Also they do not have a robust service team that you can contact for corrections or improvements. They either restart giving new numbers and updating their catalogue or we should contemplate issuing our own Numista numbers. That would be a huge undertaking but time is on our side as more and more young collectors use the computer only.
Wishing all a great weekend,
BMPJ
Correct! Xavier recently put out another thread over renewing Numista page. Well "Numista" reference could be next major step in page evolution.
LP
How would that work when dealing with collectors that don't use numista?
That's is really a good question. I do 50% of my swaps out of numista and without KM# it really wouldn't be possible. It's difficult with the new coins missing a "km#" if the description of the coin is not done in depth. Take the new commemorative euro coins. Should you give the original reason for the coin's being in the language used on the coin, or in your own language or maybe English? There's still plenty of European languages I don't master! By communicating you normally end up finding out if you have coin or not, but that's a problem now groving faster and faster.
Citation: "BMPJ"Many countries make excellent coin and banknote catalogues but there are only few publications that cover the world. There are also hundreds of books covering special eras (Olympic coins, Roman coins etc)
Krause is a publication that covers the whole world. It is not perfect or always accurate. Also they do not have a robust service team that you can contact for corrections or improvements. They either restart giving new numbers and updating their catalogue or we should contemplate issuing our own Numista numbers. That would be a huge undertaking but time is on our side as more and more young collectors use the computer only.
Wishing all a great weekend,
BMPJ
Correct! Xavier recently put out another thread over renewing Numista page. Well "Numista" reference could be next major step in page evolution.
LP
How would that work when dealing with collectors that don't use numista?
Adapt or go play dinosaur, simple. If half of the known world is using stolen pictures from Numista, then it is just a little step forward by sticking some alphanumeric string (readable meta tag) to the contraband virtual goods (read picture file).
LP
I'm all for a completely new approach to cataloging: as ALL catalogs stand now, numbers are absolutely un-informative: no country reference, no denomination, nothing. A little longer alphanumeric stream can give so much more info on the coin!
Be happy, that your work for numista is so appreciated by the rest of the world, that they will copy your findings. For me that's a goal in life, to teach the others!
Citation: "Sjoelund"Be happy, that your work for numista is so appreciated by the rest of the world, that they will copy your findings. For me that's a goal in life, to teach the others!
I know this is a lost cause, but I would like to point out that for Switzerland using HMZ 2# there are often 3 different coins with the same reference number.
Can please the devs add an option to the export function to always export KM #?
I know this is a lost cause, but I would like to point out that for Switzerland using HMZ 2# there are often 3 different coins with the same reference number.
Can please the devs add an option to the export function to always export KM #?
Where do you get hold of a Swiss catalog, and why would you want that, if you're not from Switzerland?
Now that we know Krause publications as gone bankrupt, I don't think this proposition make sense anymore.
As time goes by, KM# will lose it's appeal and we will have to wait a while for a replacement I think.
Meanwhile, for Canadian coins, I have entered the RCM reference numbers and Charlton's reference numbers on top of KM numbers. That was a lot of work and I will not REORDER the reference numbers. Is the order of the reference numbers a real issue ? I don't get it if so. Please explain.
Best regards,
Québécois
Ancienement, référent du Canada / FYI former referee for Canada
When you export your collection it export only the first reference in the file.
There are many options in the export tool and I hope it will be also a “use KM #” in the future.
Still I’m not sure that a catalogue that use the same id for coins in 3 different materials is the best choice…
That change happened a few years ago, not sure why but KM was replaced by Switzerland catalog.
Referees should keep in mind that, regardless the fact that's out of business, being an international community, it's not reasonable to expect foreigners to have local catalogs.
Completely messed up with my offline database of swiss coins…
I know this is a lost cause, but I would like to point out that for Switzerland using HMZ 2# there are often 3 different coins with the same reference number.
Can please the devs add an option to the export function to always export KM #?
Where do you get hold of a Swiss catalog, and why would you want that, if you're not from Switzerland?
I don't remember where I got my copy, but just now I quickly found five Internet sites selling it (and then stopped looking).
I purchased it because there were obvious deficiencies in the Krause coverage of Swiss Cantons. Adding HMZ references to my coins gave me more insight into my collection and Swiss coins in general.
But I wouldn't want to use it as a primary reference for my Swiss Canton coins. HMZ assigns a separate code for each denomination/year category and often doesn't give information on differences. KM# something.1 and KM# something.2 have some obvious and documented difference (usually), but HMZ# 2-####b and HMZ# 2-####c might be the same except for date or have a difference that would cause Krause to use a different type. (For example, for Saint Gall HMZ# 2-917 covers both KM# 103 and KM# 104.)
All this glittery chatter goes in direction of Numista users having a possibility to preselect personal reference as primary, secondary, etc value, when displaying My&coins/banknotes/exonumia or at least within the specific collection when displaying the search/collection results.
All this glittery chatter goes in direction of Numista users having a possibility to preselect personal reference as primary, secondary, etc value, when displaying My&coins/banknotes/exonumia or at least within the specific collection when displaying the search/collection results.
LP
If there is room enough with only 5 references of any type!
All this glittery chatter goes in direction of Numista users having a possibility to preselect personal reference as primary, secondary, etc value, when displaying My&coins/banknotes/exonumia or at least within the specific collection when displaying the search/collection results.
LP
If there is room enough with only 5 references of any type!
I do not see this as a too big of a obstacle the brass couldn't deal with…
I know this is a lost cause, but I would like to point out that for Switzerland using HMZ 2# there are often 3 different coins with the same reference number.
The same is true for KM… Here is an example of two coins with the same KM#
I think we're all missing out on concrete examples that don't lead to anything useful. We should make a small effort to be able to analyze the issue from a broad point of view and thinking about the Numista catalog and the majority of users (not just the most expert, who are usually the ones who give their opinion in the forum).
1. I consider that having several reference catalogs enriches and differentiates Numista from other numismatic websites.
2. Obviously, a general catalog of world coins such as Krause has to have more errors than a catalog specialized in a specific country and/or period.
3. In order to make decisions, you have to take into account how many people are going to order his collection based on one catalog or another. I don't think that someone who collects several (or all) countries, several (or all) eras relies on personalized catalogs of each country or period. Surely you will use one that covers the vast majority of your coins/banknotes, so it is easy to understand that the vast majority of collectors (possibly not the most expert, who are a minority), use the Krause (or Schon) catalogue.
4. CONCLUSION: Taking this into account, I consider that the reference KM# should be used in the first place without any doubt.
My proposal could even be to write the reference number KM# and the Numista number N# on one line (to give relevance to our own number in Numista and not leave the line blank if there is no KM# number), and on the line lower, the rest of references from other catalogs.
This is just my humble (and not expert) opinion.
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
4. CONCLUSION: Taking this into account, I consider that the reference KM# should be used in the first place without any doubt.
My proposal could even be to write the reference number KM# and the Numista number N# on one line (to give relevance to our own number in Numista and not leave the line blank if there is no KM# number), and on the line lower, the rest of references from other catalogs.
This is just my humble (and not expert) opinion.
I agree 100%!
For years I used only the Danish Coin catalog from Siegs, but then I collected only Danish coins all by myself, so that was good. Then I moved to Germany and I started to collect German coins, so I bought a German catalog. Later I started to travel all over the world for my firm and started to collect coins from all the countries. I stopped buying catalogs from each country and by happen chance I saw a KM catalog in a coin dealer's window, and I knew immediately, that I needed those catalogs….. I still do, and at least numismaster is still a bit alive, so my world is still OK. I swap with people from all over the world and our common communication point is the KM# and nothing else! That said, there is a mighty huge amount of coin collectors NOT members of numista, so I still keep my doubles only in an Excel spreadsheet organized by KM#, of course.
Since the main problem seems to be organizing the collection once exported to excel, why not export all the references #?
That would add 4 more columns to the spreadsheet and then it's up to the collector to filter those that he want.
So if a collector wants only the local catalog references or the international catalog reference or easier.
Sounds splendid, but does not reflect the wanted goal, since the reference numbers for a coin is not sorted in any way! The user would be left to that job himself, so it's of no use.
Here is the proof:
Order of coins after reference#
but even that is not possible, since coin 3 might not have bef03#, so the user can not even sort his list after the b#, just to say, the theory is nice, but it's not possible to satisfy everybody……
Since the main problem seems to be organizing the collection once exported to excel, why not export all the references #?
That would add 4 more columns to the spreadsheet and then it's up to the collector to filter those that he want.
So if a collector wants only the local catalog references or the international catalog reference or easier.
Sounds splendid, but does not reflect the wanted goal, since the reference numbers for a coin is not sorted in any way! The user would be left to that job himself, so it's of no use.
Here is the proof:
Order of coins after reference#
but even that is not possible, since coin 3 might not have bef03#, so the user can not even sort his list after the b#, just to say, the theory is nice, but it's not possible to satisfy everybody……
So there should be separate Export file with each different reference for each different piece in its own row.
Since the main problem seems to be organizing the collection once exported to excel, why not export all the references #?
That would add 4 more columns to the spreadsheet and then it's up to the collector to filter those that he want.
So if a collector wants only the local catalog references or the international catalog reference or easier.
Sounds splendid, but does not reflect the wanted goal, since the reference numbers for a coin is not sorted in any way! The user would be left to that job himself, so it's of no use.
Here is the proof:
Order of coins after reference#
but even that is not possible, since coin 3 might not have bef03#, so the user can not even sort his list after the b#, just to say, the theory is nice, but it's not possible to satisfy everybody……
Still, would be an easier job than today, were we have to get the km info from the comments columns, if available.
I think it is not Numista, nor the referee who should determine the sequence of the reference numbers, but the USER:
So,
If you prefer to use ÉH numbers or KM numbers in sequencing coins, that shall be up to you, based on the reference preference you have (… or maybe your books)
I will just say that reading through the thread has been very informative, since I do not use all of the Numista functionality which is mentioned here by members (downloading My Coins to Excel), and this has opened my eyes.
As referee for some places where Krause only covers part of the date range (Spanish Netherlands, Liege), I have wondered how to handle it (i.e. do I use in first place a catalog that covers all the coins?).
I think it is not Numista, nor the referee who should determine the sequence of the reference numbers, but the USER:
So,
If you prefer to use ÉH numbers or KM numbers in sequencing coins, that shall be up to you, based on the reference preference you have (… or maybe your books)
Can that be implemented, Xavier?
Cheers,
Imre
This.
It seems rather obvious that arguing about the order catalog #s should be displayed for everyone would lead nowhere. Just like with the date format, it should be a user preference, so a better question would be what is the most convenient way (for the USER) to implement this.
When it comes to excel exports, there is a number of ways it could be done:
comma separated list of all catalog #s within one column
additional columns
letting the user filter what catalog(s) they want included on the extract
I haven't kept up on this thread, nor have I read the entire thing, but I would suggest simply ordering reference numbers alphabetically. That way no one can claim bias against their catalog
Master Coin Referee
Coin referee for CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN, and SLV.
Revisor principal de monedas
Revisor de Numista para monedas de CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN y SLV.
Sorting alphabetically doesn't make much sense, since, in this case, it's not about ordering, it's about whether the KM should come first or not.
The people who are saying no (the minority) are not thinking of the majority of collectors, but of specific cases in our catalogue. I am convinced that the vast majority of users collect modern coins (from 1600 onwards) which is from the date that Krause has references, and I also believe that the vast majority of users use the KM code as the main reference for their collections. Likewise, most online catalogs use mainly (or only) the KM code when it exists, as well as most online numismatic stores.
Isn't it logical to use, when it exists, the KM code as the first option?
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
Sorting alphabetically doesn't make much sense, since, in this case, it's not about ordering, it's about whether the KM should come first or not.
The people who are saying no (the minority) are not thinking of the majority of collectors, but of specific cases in our catalogue. I am convinced that the vast majority of users collect modern coins (from 1600 onwards) which is from the date that Krause has references, and I also believe that the vast majority of users use the KM code as the main reference for their collections. Likewise, most online catalogs use mainly (or only) the KM code when it exists, as well as most online numismatic stores.
Isn't it logical to use, when it exists, the KM code as the first option?
Sometimes KM numbers exist for 1500s and 1600s issuers and it is horrible - other reference would be much better at first place.
Suis-je le seul à penser que le site Numimaster contient plein d'erreurs et qu'il manque un bon pourcentage des nouvelles pièces depuis que Krause Publications a fait faillite en 2020 ?
Exemples reçus ces derniers 2 jours seulement, indique 2013 alors que sur la photo c'est bien 2014:
Si pour certaines personnes un autre choix de référence primaire est préférable, la solution ne serait-elle pas de permettre à chacun son propre choix ?!?
Bonne fin de journée.
Québécois
Ancienement, référent du Canada / FYI former referee for Canada
My primary has been Krause since soon after I started collecting, but the quality has been going down over time. It takes lots of resources to keep up with new coin issues. I've added Schön as a co-equal, but being in German many English speaking people don't want to take the effort to use it and Numista doesn't have all the Schön numbers (although some of us have added quite a few).
Make a statistic, how many coins have a km#, how many haven't. If the number of coins with km# is higher, then set the km# first if not leave it as is.
I can imagine, it would be a hard work to make the km# first (a manual task I suppose?).
I can also imagine, the French site would go on strike, since they have allotted a kind of F#, which is completely unknown outside of France.
Le choix d'une référence pour une collection n'est généralement pas basé sur la popularité de celui-ci mais par sa couverture du sujet et son exactitude. Alors si pour les pièces de la France la “meilleure” référence est F#, laissons ce choix à ceux qui désirent l'utiliser.
Pourquoi vouloir imposer votre vision d'une référence surtout qu'elle est potentiellement moins “complète” pour un pays donné ?
Je persiste à penser que la solution serait de permettre à chacun son propre choix !
Bonne fin de journée,
Québécois
Ancienement, référent du Canada / FYI former referee for Canada
Although not French I have a lot of french coins in my collection (1412) all organized by km#. Since I find the French coins using the km#, which lucky enough is still there, I'm happy.
I don't want the world to dance after my pipe or my opinions. I have no ambitions either to become a referee! Not only that, but I can live with compromises.
No matter how many attempts we make to discredit a Catalog like Krause by giving examples of its errors (which there are, obviously), it continues (and will continue for a long time) to be the reference Catalog for the majority of coin collectors in the world for the periods of covering time.
You keep giving concrete examples of countries and periods to justify that the KM code is not in the first place, when, no matter how hard it is for some to understand, that reference is still the first (if not the only) for the vast majority of users ( including France, Canada and other countries with specific existing catalogues).
My only intention with this defense of the topic is not to try to impose my opinion (it is not important and I am not an expert in numismatism), but rather to try to ensure that the General Catalog of Numista is ruled by guidelines common to all countries and territories and that these guidelines satisfy most users. In any case, for the minority of users who use the local reference catalogs (which I think Numista enriches), these references would still be there.
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
KM# are still being given through numismaster.com, so the world is still round. (and in my opinion it has priority over any other numbering system, even if the French are against that (each year has its own French number is really a bit farfetched, isn't it?)).
No matter how many attempts we make to discredit a Catalog like Krause by giving examples of its errors (which there are, obviously), it continues (and will continue for a long time) to be the reference Catalog for the majority of coin collectors in the world for the periods of covering time.
Talking about “errors”, Want to see something funny: N#37680
However, at least sine 7th edition, which is mine, all our commemorative coins since 1900 references were changed to C### So at the 7th edition that coin is listed as C27.01 (C27.02 for the proof) I don't have the 9th edition, but am pretty sure that it is not listed as #785.01 in it.
Which one is listed as #785.01 in the 7th edition of Bentes? This one: N#68043
Former #687
So yes, Krause has it's errors, but which one doesn't?
Current system rely on order in which references were added in time for each type.
It would be highly costly to change the whole system from a very simple logic (ref1, ref2, etc) to an ontologic logic automaticcally ordering references by some editorial rules, whatever rules would be set (by issuer for instance, or universal for whole catalogue)
I still dont get what is the issue, beyond visual rendering, of having references not ordered the same way in all pages. In Carolingian section I am curating, the Prou, Depeyrot, Nouchy, MEC, Gariel and Morrison references are never set in same order in coin types and it has absolutely no impact from my perspective (neither on search neither on listings by ref code)
Yes, when you select the reference, it works. When you select only sorting, references goes sort alphabetically one reference after another depending on which one is in the first field. https://en.numista.com/catalogue/lotharingia-1.html
Yes, when you select the reference, it works. When you select only sorting, references goes sort alphabetically one reference after another depending on which one is in the first field. https://en.numista.com/catalogue/lotharingia-1.html
Then solution is to force users to set their preffered reference when they chose “sort by reference” option.
It would be completely sub optimal from my perspective to assume everyone want to order by KM by selecting this option, and to rework the whole catalogue this way based on a false assumption, whereas we already have the perfect behavior on the website
@Xavier needs also to rework that part, to show all values OR let users chose in their settings which one they prefer
The KM# are only relevant from 1601 to now, by far the largest part of the database in numista I assume?
You assume wrong : we have 153 493 items sorted as coins issued after 1600 (and not all of them are even listed in KM obviously), on a total of 403 673 types referenced on Numista.
Thanks for those numbers, you're certainly right. What I would like to know is how many of the members coins are BEFORE or AFTER 1601, since that would give us an idea of the importance of the km# for the members. You see, what I mean?
In my Excel spreadsheet, I have 44.426 coins.
Of those, 123 are missing a km#. 0.28%
1236 are before 1601, but 1234 of those are with Muslim dates! 2.77%, but with km#!
As you can see, it's natural AND logic for me to use KM#.
I don't have this figure but I would guess that 99,9% of coins in collections registered on Numista are dated post 1600; this does not solve the need for personalized sorting though because : - not everyone use Numista only for collecting purpose (there is academic use too for instance)
- even for post 1600 coins, not everyone fancy KM; if I collect only coins from Lorraine I would certainly not want to see KM first
- in terms of Product User Experience there is absolutely no reaosn to force everyone to get the settings wished even by a majority of users: as we're not a print tool but digital tool, by nature, let's not reproduce the print products limitations within our own resource, it would be madness
Only place where this has an impact is “sort by reference”
This is one reason to make KM first if available.
Not from my perspective; this is rather a reason to revisit how exports and swap tools are coded. We should never change a DB behavior based on UX/UI issues, rather the opposite
Only place where this has an impact is “sort by reference”
This is one reason to make KM first if available.
Not from my perspective; this is rather a reason to revisit how exports and swap tools are coded. We should never change a DB behavior based on UX/UI issues, rather the opposite
Understood however suggestions to add additional references to the export file have largely gone unanswered.
Only place where this has an impact is “sort by reference”
This is one reason to make KM first if available.
Not from my perspective; this is rather a reason to revisit how exports and swap tools are coded. We should never change a DB behavior based on UX/UI issues, rather the opposite
I just want a parameter in my profile, saying that my default identifier is the KM# if coded for the coin selected and my swaps, searches should come in KM# order, when possible. If not, any other identifier would be OK.
Only place where this has an impact is “sort by reference”
This is one reason to make KM first if available.
Not from my perspective; this is rather a reason to revisit how exports and swap tools are coded. We should never change a DB behavior based on UX/UI issues, rather the opposite
I just want a parameter in my profile, saying that my default identifier is the KM# if coded for the coin selected and my swaps, searches should come in KM# order, when possible. If not, any other identifier would be OK.
Yes, it's exactly what I suggested too here Sorry if it was not clear enough
Yes, when you select the reference, it works. When you select only sorting, references goes sort alphabetically one reference after another depending on which one is in the first field. https://en.numista.com/catalogue/lotharingia-1.html
Please try China ancient (check that you have 218 results) based on Hartill# 2017 book, it doesn't work. I tried to sort all China ancient coins based on Hartill and some coins are ok, but not all. Filter Hartill + *.
Yes, when you select the reference, it works. When you select only sorting, references goes sort alphabetically one reference after another depending on which one is in the first field. https://en.numista.com/catalogue/lotharingia-1.html
Please try China ancient (check that you have 218 results) based on Hartill# 2017 book, it doesn't work. I tried to sort all China ancient coins based on Hartill and some coins are ok, but not all. Filter Hartill + *.
It works perfectly on my end
Make sure you activated the setting “sort by reference”
While Krause may be good with modern-day issuers, they are not so good with the older issuers (specifically thinking about the places I am referee for, at least).
Their Livonian/Livonian-related sections are very bad--the City of Reval has description errors and duplicates. And while the Chinese cash coins are not that bad, they are still not good (very generalized, and I once found they catalogued a counterfeit type). For my countries, there are many sources that are way better than Krause, so the position of Krause within the reference section reflects that.
On some pages, the only reason I even include Krause numbers is because it is a popular source. And if Krause was forced to be the first reference, I would even prefer to not list Krause at all--I could probably fill the list of sources with better catalogues, anyways.
I agree - I prefer to list all attributed sources. That being said Krause Publication is Riddle with errors and incomplete.
Coins dated 1935 or its equivalent including No Dates.
I am currently looking for the following coins, you can view, them on my webpage: https://coinwishlist.weebly.com/
Regardless of all those points, I think that the first criteria should be “which catalogue is easier for any collector to have/buy?” For my Brazillian coins, I use Bentes, but you can find it anywhere here. When it comes to foreign coins, Krauzer is the more easier to find catalogue. It's impossible for me to get a particular catalogue from a particular country, it's just not available. Let alone for ancient coins not covered by Krauzer.
Isn't possible to look at all the coins at numista, that at least one person have in its collection (rarity <100), and see the percentage of those that have a KM and those who doesn't? If the majority of the coins owned by numista members do have a km, them it is it.
Numista is used by thousands of users from all over the world. The vast majority, surely, collect modern coins or coins from 1600 (you could search the database and get this statistics). The vast majority of users use KM as a reference in their collections (you could search and make other statistics). Here I have only heard, to refute the fact that the KM code comes first, specific and personal cases. I don't think that should be the criterion, but rather ensuring that the majority of users have the code they use in the first place.
I'm not a big fan of Krause (as a referee for Spain and Liberia I've seen many errors and missing coins), but my personal opinion should not prevail over that of the majority.
And the votes are "only" 42 to 24 because many "non-specialized" users or new to collecting, who will surely have collections of modern coins and will use Krause, I do not think will participate in the forum.
That said, I think there are two types of solutions: either put KM first (which benefits most users) or being able to choose which reference you want to see first (which benefits everyone).
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
Yes, when you select the reference, it works. When you select only sorting, references goes sort alphabetically one reference after another depending on which one is in the first field. https://en.numista.com/catalogue/lotharingia-1.html
Please try China ancient (check that you have 218 results) based on Hartill# 2017 book, it doesn't work. I tried to sort all China ancient coins based on Hartill and some coins are ok, but not all. Filter Hartill + *.
It works perfectly on my end
Make sure you activated the setting “sort by reference”
I did. Why do you have Hartill# 10.1 at first place, it's not the first Hartill code? And if you scroll more you find this place. My opinion is that you sorting does not work like you said. I want to have all China ancient sorted by Hartill reference.
Because Chengjia Empire is a different issuer than China ancient. We can sort within an issuer but issuers themselves will continue to be sorted alphabeticcally
I already reported to @Xavier the need for mixing all issuers when we talk about references BUT it would conflict with how some catalogues are used here, notably … KM! where numbering is reset for each issuer so we cannot mix
Because Chengjia Empire is a different issuer than China ancient. We can sort within an issuer but issuers themselves will continue to be sorted alphabeticcally
I already reported to @Xavier the need for mixing all issuers when we talk about references BUT it would conflict with how some catalogues are used here, notably … KM! where numbering is reset for each issuer so we cannot mix
Because Chengjia Empire is a different issuer than China ancient. We can sort within an issuer but issuers themselves will continue to be sorted alphabeticcally
I already reported to @Xavier the need for mixing all issuers when we talk about references BUT it would conflict with how some catalogues are used here, notably … KM! where numbering is reset for each issuer so we cannot mix
OK, now I get it. The problem is actually the definition of an issuer.
These two coins should be consecutive pieces but aren't in Numista because the first one has an Issuer of China (ancient), emperor Qin dynasty and the second one has an issuer of State of Qin, not China (ancient) nor no emperor. So we should modify the database so that these both have been saved similar way (=the first one should have Qin dynasty as an issuer or both should have China (ancient) as an issuer). I think you know what I mean.
Because Chengjia Empire is a different issuer than China ancient. We can sort within an issuer but issuers themselves will continue to be sorted alphabeticcally
I already reported to @Xavier the need for mixing all issuers when we talk about references BUT it would conflict with how some catalogues are used here, notably … KM! where numbering is reset for each issuer so we cannot mix
Hi
I was asking for this some time ago within more threads. I do hope that the development would go in direction reference types:
Single Issuer reference (clearly #KM)
Multiple Issuer reference (clearly "Mandić)
With single Issuer reference search results are listed only by the Issuer first and if reference is set up through two or more Issuers, then Issuer is NOT the main parameter for display of search results, but the reference is.
Although not directly connected to the issue above, I also hope we get one day the possibility of 4th level Issuer in case of federal states (US, Yugoslavia, etc…).
I'm back to my original request, I just got coins from Switzerland, Germany (Germany (1871-1948) and from several German states.
Switzerland was with HMZ 2 reference numbers!
The German states with AKS numbers!
France is using their incomprehensible F numbers (each coin and year has its own number, if I have understood it well).
Other countries are probably also using their own local reference catalogs.
I still found the arguments in this thread for using the km# when given as the best solution. We can't really expect that the members have local catalogs from each individual country.
I do have catalogs from several countries, which I use in my researches for variants, but I never use their reference numbers…..
