Combining pages split soley by external references

40 posts • viewed 353 times

» Quick access to the last post

Hello! :`

I would like to use this thread to inform members of a merger of some pages under Belgium:

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1239.html (KM#144 and KM#148)
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces752.html (KM#145 and KM#149)

The differences between the pre-combined pages were only a few millimetres, with the biggest difference being a change in reference. And with these pages being older ones, those references were likely an important factor as to why they had been split in the first place.

With that being said, if you happen to know of any other pages that are split solely by external reference (so ones that are questionable as to why they even have different pages, or ones that have differencces so minor that they really shouldn't be split), feel free to post some links here. I can look into those pages and possibly help with combining them. 0:)

And yeah... that should be everything.

Best regards,
Sulfur

EDIT: Keeping track of everything here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hlF7WAnWFO05awrD5MqTR_zoi99npTo-XO38vyXB3eA/edit?usp=sharing
I posted about a week or two ago some colonial Guatemalan coins that needed to be merged. Here's a link: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic113083.html
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.

Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦 and Free Palestine 🇵🇸!
How about these Dutch coins? For both denominations, the split(s) are due to the change of king but the types are identical.
½ Cent
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces21544.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces37972.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces16120.html
1 Cent
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces6540.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces8927.html
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Quote: "Some_Nerd"​I posted about a week or two ago some colonial Guatemalan coins that needed to be merged. Here's a link: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic113083.html
​Yes, these ones can definitely be merged. I will comment on the existing thread. :)
Quote: "ceh2019"​How about these Dutch coins? For both denominations, the split(s) are due to the change of king but the types are identical.
½ Cent
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces21544.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces37972.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces16120.html
1 Cent
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces6540.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces8927.html
I agree with merging these ones, and ​I messaged the referee about it. :`
Fantastic. It's always seemed daft to split those Dutch coins. Unfortunately, KM did this in a lot of other places (I suspect they were copying from earlier catalogues that were divided between monarchs). One obvious case is Prussia. The change in crown is clear and should not be merged, the other splits are due to either change in king or the use of collared dies.
1 Pfenning, wide crown
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces9461.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces44004.html
1 Pfenning, narrow crown
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces10406.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces10405.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces4228.html
2 Pfenninge, wide crown
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces9670.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces18320.html
2 Pfenninge, narrow crown
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces16307.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces10384.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces15607.html
3 Pfenninge, wide crown
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces16308.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces47422.html
3 Pfenninge, narrow crown
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces18319.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces6170.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces14248.html
4 Pfenninge, wide crown
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces15656.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces27741.html
4 Pfenninge, narrow crown
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces47414.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces13338.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces15897.html
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Quote: "Sulfur"
Quote: "ceh2019"​How about these Dutch coins? For both denominations, the split(s) are due to the change of king but the types are identical.
​​½ Cent
​​https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces21544.html
​​https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces37972.html
​​https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces16120.html
​​1 Cent
​​https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces6540.html
​​https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces8927.html
​I agree with merging these ones, and ​I messaged the referee about it. :`
​Any word back from the referee about these?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Quote: "ceh2019"​​​Any word back from the referee about these?
​None yet.

I anticipated this problem happening--just not so soon. I sent a request to remind the referee, and so hopefully that will work.

Regardless, I am going to have to find a "clean" way to document all changed and requests. Because this is about merging, meaning every request has multiple links, including one list in the first post would get overcrowded. But obviously, doing these requests chronologically is not efficiant, so I'll try to think of something better.

With that being said, I will attempt to move on to your next request.
Quote: "ceh2019"​Fantastic. It's always seemed daft to split those Dutch coins. Unfortunately, KM did this in a lot of other places (I suspect they were copying from earlier catalogues that were divided between monarchs). One obvious case is Prussia. The change in crown is clear and should not be merged, the other splits are due to either change in king or the use of collared dies.

In general, I agree with merging these ones; however, I think more of an argument needs to be given for the switch to collared dies.
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces10406.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces10405.html

These collars could be seen as a design element--the original coins had plain borders, then they switched to make the borders look more fancy. It was an intentional change that is rather obvious to see when comparing the coins, so I think it would make sense to keep those ones separate.

But I will message the referee about the rest of them. :)
Quote: "Sulfur"​​In general, I agree with merging these ones; however, I think more of an argument needs to be given for the switch to collared dies.
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces10406.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces10405.html

​These collars could be seen as a design element--the original coins had plain borders, then they switched to make the borders look more fancy. It was an intentional change that is rather obvious to see when comparing the coins, so I think it would make sense to keep those ones separate.

​But I will message the referee about the rest of them. :)

​If we want to keep the split due to collared dies, that's fine by me as long as it's clearly documented. Let me know when you're ready for more such requests. I already have a list of over two dozen from other German states.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Quote: "ceh2019"​How about these Dutch coins? For both denominations, the split(s) are due to the change of king but the types are identical.
½ Cent
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces21544.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces37972.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces16120.html
1 Cent
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces6540.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces8927.html
​These are not identical coins. The mint marks and identifiers (torch, fleur-de-lis, etc.) under the crest are different. Let them stand apart rather than merge them.
Quote: "JRo69"​​​These are not identical coins. The mint marks and identifiers (torch, fleur-de-lis, etc.) under the crest are different. Let them stand apart rather than merge them.

​If we were to divide these coins according to mint and privy marks, the ½ cent of Willem I would be split between Brussels and Utrecht, the ½ cent of Willem III would be split between sword and broadaxe, the 1 cent of Willem I would be split between child, torch (Utrecht) and palm branch (Brussels), and the 1 cent of Willem III would be split between sword and broadaxe. None of these splits appear in any catalogue I'm aware of. The only reason for the splits in KM# is the change in king. Even the Dutch euros have changes in privy marks that don't result in splits, such as this 2 euros. Why should these ½ and 1 cent coins be treated any differently?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Alrighty. I made a Sheet to document the changes--nothing fancy, but it should help with keeping track of all these requests. :)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hlF7WAnWFO05awrD5MqTR_zoi99npTo-XO38vyXB3eA/edit?usp=sharing
Quote: "JRo69"​​​These are not identical coins. The mint marks and identifiers (torch, fleur-de-lis, etc.) under the crest are different. Let them stand apart rather than merge them.
​What ceh2019 said is exactly correct.

We do not split pages based off mintmarks or privy marks; even if the change in ruling authority happened to coincide with a change in those two marks, there are many examples were those changes did not coincide with anything (and those types of pages are never split).
Quote: "ceh2019"
Quote: "JRo69"​​​These are not identical coins. The mint marks and identifiers (torch, fleur-de-lis, etc.) under the crest are different. Let them stand apart rather than merge them.

​​If we were to divide these coins according to mint and privy marks, the ½ cent of Willem I would be split between Brussels and Utrecht, the ½ cent of Willem III would be split between sword and broadaxe, the 1 cent of Willem I would be split between child, torch (Utrecht) and palm branch (Brussels), and the 1 cent of Willem III would be split between sword and broadaxe. None of these splits appear in any catalogue I'm aware of. The only reason for the splits in KM# is the change in king. Even the Dutch euros have changes in privy marks that don't result in splits, such as this 2 euros. Why should these ½ and 1 cent coins be treated any differently?

Point taken, but they are still not identical coins. ​You don't combine English pennies, but divide them by ruler - are you suggesting we combine all English pennies into one, regardless of ruler?
IMHO, leave the Dutch pennies and half pennies alone.
These are cents, not pennies. If you look at the English and British coins, they all have the monarch's head on them together with their names. This makes them different types. These Dutch coins do not have the monarch's name or head on them, only a monogram which didn't change because the three kings were all called Willem. Thus, other than the minor differences of date, mintmark and privy mark, they are the same and should be treated as single types.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
At the risk of changing the subject, here are two Afghani coins that should be merged:

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces59044.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces187876.html

The first is the the uncirculated variety and the second is proof. The only reason they are split is due the different KM numbers.
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.

Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦 and Free Palestine 🇵🇸!
I took another look at Afghanistan and found another two with the same story:

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces38926.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces187879.html
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.

Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦 and Free Palestine 🇵🇸!
Quote: "Sulfur"
Quote: "JRo69"​​​These are not identical coins. The mint marks and identifiers (torch, fleur-de-lis, etc.) under the crest are different. Let them stand apart rather than merge them.
​​What ceh2019 said is exactly correct.

​We do not split pages based off mintmarks or privy marks; even if the change in ruling authority happened to coincide with a change in those two marks, there are many examples were those changes did not coincide with anything (and those types of pages are never split).
​Mintmark splits are actually fairly common in Russian Empire entries; e.g. Catherine II 5 kopeks Ekaterinburg mint, Moscow mint, Saint-Petersburg mint, Sestroretsk mint, Suzun mint, Tauric mint, Anninsky mint, all with their own pages. (This is admittedly an extreme example, 2-3 is more typical.)

I think I've seen a few other cases where pages are split by mint; sometimes this is justified by minute differences in portrait and/or style.
Quote: "January First-of-May"​​​Mintmark splits are actually fairly common in Russian Empire entries; e.g. Catherine II 5 kopeks Ekaterinburg mint, Moscow mint, Saint-Petersburg mint, Sestroretsk mint, Suzun mint, Tauric mint, Anninsky mint, all with their own pages. (This is admittedly an extreme example, 2-3 is more typical.)

​I think I've seen a few other cases where pages are split by mint; sometimes this is justified by minute differences in portrait and/or style.

​My impression is that these coins, whilst having the same basic features, clearly used distinct dies and so splitting them is more than just down to mintmarks. However, I suspect there are some changes within the issues of a single mint that are as significant as the changes between mints, so these may well represent other cases for consideration here.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Quote: "Some_Nerd"​At the risk of changing the subject, here are two Afghani coins that should be merged:

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces59044.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces187876.html

​The first is the the uncirculated variety and the second is proof. The only reason they are split is due the different KM numbers.
These ones (and the other Afghani ones) have been combined. :)
Quote: "January First-of-May"​​​Mintmark splits are actually fairly common in Russian Empire entries; e.g. Catherine II 5 kopeks Ekaterinburg mint, Moscow mint, Saint-Petersburg mint, Sestroretsk mint, Suzun mint, Tauric mint, Anninsky mint, all with their own pages. (This is admittedly an extreme example, 2-3 is more typical.)
​​
​​I think I've seen a few other cases where pages are split by mint; sometimes this is justified by minute differences in portrait and/or style.​​
Quote: "ceh2019"​My impression is that these coins, whilst having the same basic features, clearly used distinct dies and so splitting them is more than just down to mintmarks. However, I suspect there are some changes within the issues of a single mint that are as significant as the changes between mints, so these may well represent other cases for consideration here.
These do not seem to be split by mint or other small design changes--they seem to be split just by mintmark. For example, see this page: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces101900.html. Two mints are listed on that page because neither used a mintmark (and with a few years being between when these two mints struck their coins, I imagine there are small changes as significant as the other places which are split).

With that being said, I recall someone posting a thread about these two specific pages (although I have not been able to find that thread):
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces11627.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces101959.html

There are five different mintmarks on one page, yet TM gets its own page. I cannot remember how that thread progressed, but if there are answers on that thread, that could potentially help us here. And at the very least, that page with five mints shows us how combining these pages would look.

Andddd there is a relevant thread here:
https://en.numista.com/forum/topic113267.html

​Based on my current understanding of these pieces, I would actually prefer to see them all combined...
Here's one legitimately tricky case for you to ponder about...

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces12985.html - Swedish 2 öre issued in iron due to WWI bronze shortage
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces4033.html - Swedish 2 öre issued in iron due to WWII bronze shortage

The designs and specifications are completely identical, the KM numbers are different.
I can see how those can be considered different types due to their history, but technically the only difference (other than the backstory) is the KM number.

(For the 1 öre and 5 öre denominations the specifications for the WWI and WWII types as given in Numista are slightly different, though I do not know whether those are in fact the correct figures.)
An excellent example. First, all three are a problem as the standard weights were 1/576, 1/288 and 1/144 kg for both issues. This website distinguishes between the two issues with the terms "Ljust järn" meaning "light iron" and "Mörkt järn" meaning "dark iron". We also have this distinction but only for the 2 and 5 öre coins from 1942 within KM#811 & 812 (see the 5 öre for a nice image). As to what the actual difference was, I'm still trying to discover. I would suggest we move the "light" 1942 coins to the earlier type unless someone can find any other differences that could separate the 1917-1920 pieces from those of 1942-1950.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
I think I've found an explanation for the "dark iron" in this 1966 official document. The relevant text is on page 37:

Järnmynten har i Sverige brukat patineras med s.k. selensvart, som ger en viss grad av rostskydd.

Iron coins in Sweden have usually be patinated with so-called selenium black, which gives a certain degree of rust protection.


This would seem to explain the change in appearance in 1942. For me, that's enough to justify two separate pages but with the "light" 1942 coins moved to the earlier type.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Quote: "Sulfur"
Quote: "ceh2019"​​​Any word back from the referee about these?
​​None yet.

​I anticipated this problem happening--just not so soon. I sent a request to remind the referee, and so hopefully that will work.

​Regardless, I am going to have to find a "clean" way to document all changed and requests. Because this is about merging, meaning every request has multiple links, including one list in the first post would get overcrowded. But obviously, doing these requests chronologically is not efficiant, so I'll try to think of something better.

​With that being said, I will attempt to move on to your next request.
​The Dutch ½ and 1 cent coins are still split unnecessarily between the different kings. Did the referee turn down your request to combine?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Interesting discussion.

I have been entering a lot of medieval coins in the catalog recently.
Often a change in the mint means a change in the lettering reverse (for instance, MONETA BRUX versus MONETA LOVA). If none of the other design elements and legends change significantly, I have been including both of these in the same listing (typically a reign-denomination-type listing), providing the two mint options in the date list, even if catalogs list them separately in most cases.

I will add these are cases where the Numista rarity index is typically 90 or above.

I think back in this era we have some listings like I have described, but others (Eigland for instance), where it is common for each mint to get its owm listing despite similar differences.
Quote: "ceh2019"​​The Dutch ½ and 1 cent coins are still split unnecessarily between the different kings. Did the referee turn down your request to combine?
​My requests are still pending. And these are not something I can simply approve myself because I need the year-lists to be unverfied before going through with anything.

Without the referee's cooperation, there is not really anything I can do...

[And I have not forgotten about the Swedish coins--I have just been rather busy lately, and have not had the time to look into them yet.]
Quote: "tdziemia"​I have been entering a lot of medieval coins in the catalog recently.
​Often a change in the mint means a change in the lettering reverse (for instance, MONETA BRUX versus MONETA LOVA). If none of the other design elements and legends change significantly, I have been including both of these in the same listing (typically a reign-denomination-type listing), providing the two mint options in the date list, even if catalogs list them separately in most cases. ​
How I see it is, if the mint is specified in the legend, that counts as a change in the lettering, which warrants its own page. Mintmarks, on the other hand, are small marks that tell us what the mint is (and you will likely need an external source to figure out what the mintmark signifies, if you are not well-versed in the coins in question).

This also helps for searching-purposes. If we combined "Moneta Brux" and "Moneta Lova" in the same page, we could only use one of those in the lettering section. And so, if someone searches the other, they will either not find their coin or have a very difficult time finding it. But then, when it comes to mintmarks, those are minor enough that searching them would be futile (because simply searching "A" would bring many irrelevant results).

So while we do not split by mintmark, it is alright to split by mint (when reflected in the legend). (8
Quote: "Sulfur"
​​My requests are still pending. And these are not something I can simply approve myself because I need the year-lists to be unverfied before going through with anything.

​Without the referee's cooperation, there is not really anything I can do...


​Well the issue here is that the only referee for the Netherlands, Florino28, only deals with Euro coinage. That leaves the Netherlands basically refereeless and without requests being caught by master referees.
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.

Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦 and Free Palestine 🇵🇸!
Andddd my request to merge the Dutch pages was finally dealt with, only it was rejected.

I guess there is not much I can do here...
Can you at least tell us who rejected it and on what grounds?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.

A request like this is impossible to complete without the cooperation from the referee, sadly...
So it was Florino28? Don't they have to give a reason for rejecting a change request? This isn't about having a go at them but wanting to understand why they think it's a bad idea.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Quote: "ceh2019"​So it was Florino28? Don't they have to give a reason for rejecting a change request? This isn't about having a go at them but wanting to understand why they think it's a bad idea.
​To be fair, Florino28 did give his reasons for rejecting the request.
Quote: "rsirian1"​​​To be fair, Florino28 did give his reasons for rejecting the request.

​Can you tell us where this can be found or is it a private communication?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Quote: "ceh2019"
Quote: "rsirian1"​​​To be fair, Florino28 did give his reasons for rejecting the request.

​​Can you tell us where this can be found or is it a private communication?
​It's in the picture Sulfur just posted. I'm not making any judgement on the reasoning though.
Quote: "rsirian1"​​​It's in the picture Sulfur just posted. I'm not making any judgement on the reasoning though.

​Thanks. On my screen it was too small to read until I clicked on it.
The first point is that some users may be confused. On the contrary, what's confusing is having these coins treated as if they're different types.
The second point is that details may differ. Note the word "may". Surely as referee they can look at the coins and see that only dates and privy marks change?
The third point about monarch periods not being continuous makes no sense to me. Are they claiming there was a gap between these three kings? If so, they need to be corrected.
There was a clear consensus in our discussion, one which Florino28 didn't join. There has to be a point at which such a consensus overrides the opinion of the referee. It should be a high bar but it should be possible to reach.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Quote: "ceh2019"There was a clear consensus in our discussion, one which Florino28 didn't join. There has to be a point at which such a consensus overrides the opinion of the referee. It should be a high bar but it should be possible to reach.

​Florino28 probably didn't join the discussion because he/she can't speak proper English (this isn't an insult to be clear, the profile also only mentions French). The messages I had with Florino28 were worse than Google translate. So I'm a bit surprised it's so good in this text.
This does of course present us with a problem but surely this is a reason for having co-referees?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.

» Forum policy

Used time zone is UTC+1:00.
Current time is 10:31.