Iran currencies in catalogue

17 posts

» Quick access to the last post

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/iran-1.html

The distinctions are now per dynasty, even though during the Pahlavi dynasty the currency was reformed from Qiran to Rial in 1932. This causes some value inconsistencies as both had Dinar as a sub-unit but they had different values.
Oh, NO,

it get's worse and worse!! Who knows the history and rulers of IRAN? When I want to look up a coin from IRAN, would I be allowed to do that without knowing the rulers?

Who ever agreed to complicate matters, where things worked so well before?

Numista is slowly killing itself by making things too complicated, but so be it.... KM will certainly outlive this beast with no head and no goal, except to make it as complicated as possible to navigate!

Ole
Globetrotter
Coin varieties in French:
https://monnaiesetvarietes.numista.com
Even though I am not as vigilant as Ole in keeping stuff together l do agree with him things have gone much too far in a lot of cases. Especially when currency reforms are ignored and a dynasty change isn't, as in this Iranian case.
I have to agree with Ole and jokinen on this. The logic is sometimes very far away in our catalogue. Remember cases were different denominations from the same year are listed in different currencies (Peru), which Ole justly called idiotic (https://en.numista.com/forum/topic64829.html) (but still nothing changed, sometimes I think we're just talking to the wind) or cases were currency reforms are ignored and the same KM# numbers occur in different currencies (https://en.numista.com/forum/topic63533.html).
Noted. I was told that the way I divided Czechoslovakia was good. Now this is bad. So let me know, when we should divide and when not? Otherwise Czechoslovakia will get all mixed up into one currency.
Catalogue administrator
Hi Jarcek,

when you search for Czechoslovakia you find it immediately and you don't have to select any period, just the km# you need, which doesn't bother me a lot....... just like always!

Ole
Globetrotter
Coin varieties in French:
https://monnaiesetvarietes.numista.com
But Czechoslovakia is divided politically as well. I want some order, but I am not sure how to make precise formulation for guidelines.

For me, political division is ok if it corresponds with coin changes (as it does in Czechoslovakia by the way). If it does not corresponds, I agree it should be divided by currencies only.
Catalogue administrator
What I don't want to see is something like this:
Iran ruler 1
Iran ruler 2
Iran ruler 3
and so on.....

I just want to see Iran all alone, when I search for Iran and then straight away I can enter the wanted km#, that's all. I don't want to search for Iran ruler 5, since I wouldn't know him and even if the dates from and to were given, I would still be against it.... It's as simple as that. The country name and the km# is enough!

Ole
Globetrotter
Coin varieties in French:
https://monnaiesetvarietes.numista.com
Actually, I don't understand the Czechoslovakia setup either. As far as I understand, the only major revaluing of the Koruna happened in 1953. I don't understand why there is a split at 1960 and at 1990 because, according to what I can find, this was a change of political system, not a change of currency.

Jarcek, you have said, "I want some order..." But the thing is, it was fine like it was! There was order and it was perfectly usable for anyone who had ever used a Krause book. What is happening now is creating disorder because you are forcing a set of artificial divisions, which are not (and cannot ever be) consistent between countries, on the Numista catalogue.

The only argument I have seen for this is that people were confused by seeing long lists of coins. The problem is, these subdivisions are going to make things more confusing because you would expect coins of the same currency unit to be grouped together, in order of denomination.

Those of us who are consistently speaking out against these changes are just being ignored, and this is making it unpleasant to be part of Numista. We are seeing a beloved resource being made less useful by a mad group-think in which people are claiming to be dissatisfied with how things are, but have no experience of the long-term inconvenience of the new system that is coming in.

Let me be very clear: I do appreciate, very deeply, that you are there to manage the catalogue. But, if something is happening that I think is bad, I should be able to speak out without being judged to be unappreciative of the job you do in general. I hope you will see this feedback as something that will help you to run a great site because that is certainly how it is intended.
Some people liked it, some people did not.

We are currently discussing on the team what to do with this, because, if you look at Iran or Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, Czechoslovakia is not as much of a problem.

Anyway, I agree Czechoslovakia could be divided into three 1918-1938, 1945-1953 and 1953-1992. This would be currency-wise the most correct version. I thought that the best solution would be if Xavier made it possible to sort by currency and by political changes. Standard would be by currency, and those who for some reasons prefer otherwise, could have their own means.
Catalogue administrator
Quote: "Jarcek"I thought that the best solution would be if Xavier made it possible to sort by currency and by political changes. Standard would be by currency, and those who for some reasons prefer otherwise, could have their own means.

​I also think that is the best solution but we don't have that yet. To give us that Xavier is going to have to make changes to the database structure of Numista, and that is going to be quite a lot of work for him.

As I've said before in these arguments, when we change a country to show political changes before we have this feature, we are not gaining order, we are actually losing order. If we just left things grouped by currency, then we would still have that grouping when the "sort by politics" feature arrives and then we could build up the political categories separately without disrupting the currencies.

When we subdivide currencies by political grouping now, we are destroying the currency grouping, and getting a political grouping that isn't quite accurate either so that, when the "sort by politics" feature does arrive, both the currency and the political grouping will have to be redone, resulting in doubled future work.

The medical principle of "First, do no harm!" should surely be applied here.

But aside from that, most collectors are not specialists for most of the countries on Numista. I think people will want to sort by currency 90% of the time, because that is what they are used to from Krause and many other catalogues, because it is simpler, and because it is a more accurate reflection of the monetary history of a country. That is why I am so massively opposed to tampering with the currency grouping - because I sincerely believe that it is making the catalogue less valuable.

And here is the thing... when there is a debate about keeping things as they are or changing them, the default action seems to be to change them. Nobody is even really acknowledging the many of us who don't think these changes are a good idea. This makes Numista unstable, inconsistent and less usable. I worry every time I come here that another country has been completely rearranged.

If Numista needs to include political history (and I seriously doubt that it does!) then this should be implemented properly as a separate feature in code and the currency groupings should be restored to how they were before these changes. What is happening now is not good for Numista or those of us who rely on it, as I am sure you will see if you think about the matter for a bit.
Hi andrewdotcoza,

I'm agreeing 100% with you.

I have to admit that I was happier in the days where a country was a country and the country corresponded to the name in KM.... It was so much easier to come to the goal, either consulting a coin or entering a coin. Yes, I do that a lot with my more than 37.000 coins and more and more coming.

I only use the "advanced search" and before when I tipped in the first letter of the wanted country, I already had the first country starting with that letter and using the down option I got the wanted country in maximum half a second. Then I just had to enter the KM# and I had the wanted type in all in all 1 second.....

Now:
Let's take Denmark.
1. I type "d" and I get Alderney, Andorra, Antigua and Barboda etc as first choice, that is to say the countries with a "d" somewhere in the name.
2. I add the "e" and again I get all the countries containing "de" somewhere.
3. With the "n" I get Denmark

OK, that's a setback, but in the "advanced search" the country name should not be searched like that, but from the FIRST letter. To search for strings in the country names is not a very effective way to search. I can accept that for the "easy search", where people don't know 100% what they are looking for.

Ole
Globetrotter
Coin varieties in French:
https://monnaiesetvarietes.numista.com
I'm agreeing 100% with andrewdotcoza too.
Firstly - Ole - that is a clear bug, will report it for fixing.

Secondly. Point taken. Please let me bring it to some perspective.

I did reworked Czechoslovakia more than a year ago. This is not something that has been done now. And at least, Czechoslovakia divisions respect the changes in coinage - there was a great political change in 1948 and I haven't included it because the coinage stayed the same. Also, I followed Krause, there it is divided the same way.

On the other hand, things that happened more recently, in Iran or PLC in this matter, make political divisions fully, with no regard to currencies. I am not trying to make it look right, when this showed up I was sorry that I ever done the change in Czechoslovakia.

So that is what we need to discuss - even Krause recognized that political change was worth noting, and we need to establish, when and where we should make these divisions or not. (And whether to follow suit from Krause, I often dislike it for their mistakes, but it is understadable for most people)
Catalogue administrator
Hi Jarcek,

Czechoslovakia is not a problem for me, since I get it all, when typing "sz"...... In my collection file I even have it in 3 parts, Czhechoslovakia, CSSR and CSFR, but that's my own cooking.

Ole
Globetrotter
Coin varieties in French:
https://monnaiesetvarietes.numista.com
Quote: "jokinen"​during the Pahlavi dynasty the currency was reformed from Qiran to Rial in 1932. This causes some value inconsistencies as both had Dinar as a sub-unit but they had different values.
​But you guys are all missing the point. Here it's not about the ruler but the currency. The currency changed from Qiran to Rial. This, I reckon, is worth noting in the catalogue.
I mean, 1 Qiran = 1,000 Dinar, but 1 Rial = 100 Dinar.
I don't know about you guys, but to me that's a pretty big difference.
It's like have the pre-1971 pound sterling mixed with the modern pound sterling. It would be a mess.
Coin referee for: AZE, FRO, GRL, US-HI, KOR, KGZ, MLI, MHL, MMR, PRK, UZB, SML, TAT, TWN, TJK
Banknote referee for: AGO, AZE, BLR, ECS, GEO, HTI, KAZ, KGZ, KOR, MNG, MRT, PMR, PRK, ROK, SWE, TJK, TKM, TUR, UZB, WSM, ZWE
If we should list the Iranian currencies it would be something like this:

First Persian Empire (Achaemenid Empire) (550~330 BC): 1 Daric = 20 Silver coins
(1501~1798): 1 Tuman = 50 Abbasi
(1798~1825): 1 Toman = 10,000 Dinar, 8 Rial = 1,250 Dinar
(1825~1932): 1 Qiran = 20 Shahi = 1,000 Dinar
(1932~): 1 Rial = 100 Dinar, 1 Pahlavi = 100 Rial

The italic one is because I couldn't find any information about the currenccies between 1736~1798.
Coin referee for: AZE, FRO, GRL, US-HI, KOR, KGZ, MLI, MHL, MMR, PRK, UZB, SML, TAT, TWN, TJK
Banknote referee for: AGO, AZE, BLR, ECS, GEO, HTI, KAZ, KGZ, KOR, MNG, MRT, PMR, PRK, ROK, SWE, TJK, TKM, TUR, UZB, WSM, ZWE

» Forum policy

Used time zone is UTC+1:00.
Current time is 10:35.