then it would have been better. Under current settings how is
anyone to know if a Set has been created?
If I have say a Royal Mint 1975 coin set - if I create a new page
today, how would it be known if I am wasting my precious time when
in a few weeks it gets rejected, as there are 7 other members
having also tried to create exactly the same set? :( :( 😵💫
This will be nice when it's eventually implemented. Currently the only way I know is to look on a coin that belongs in the set and see if it shows a set listed on the coin page.
"All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost; The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost." - J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring
Buying price for sets is included in the My values number on the My collection page. Buying value for sets is not distributed between the coins in the set and does not show up in the export excel file.
“Buying price for sets is included in the My values number on the My collection page. Buying value for sets is not distributed between the coins in the set and does not show up in the export excel file.”
Yes, I see that. I was asking if there were any plans to fix that. Being able to track prices paid (and an estimate of current worth) on each coin in one's collection is one of the primary use cases for Numista.
Possible compromise - give us a toggle setting to NOT include set prices in collection value. Then we could continue to manually enter set coins in order to track prices/values as we have for years AND track which sets we have (a feature I've been looking forward to for a long time) WITHOUT double counting the set purchase price.
Yes, I see that. I was asking if there were any plans to fix that.
There is nothing to fix. The set value fixes something and is not introducing a new error. When you buy a set you pay for all the coins/items in it. It is very arbitrary to now assign the individual components a value (I personally just took the face value, divided the buying price by it and weighted the values a bit … not that good of a system). If you want to still assign individual coins a value nothing is hindering you to add the coins one by one as before to set feature was introduced.
The problem is that if you want to add individual coins in the set a value as well as add a set to your collection you can't without doubling up the number of coins.
what to you think of extending sets to hoards, troves and stashes?
The current allowed set are commercial items and multiple copies are generally produced. Hoards, troves, and stashes are unique items and not produced by an issuer.
If you want to identify the types that are found in a particular famous hoard I suggest requesting a tag for the hoard.
For the moment we don't have a functionality for searching sets.
Hello @Xavier , any news regarding the guidelines for sets? We, referees, are receiving more and more requests for new sets. Unfortunatelly, with a lack of guidelines, it's a very non-consistence in titles, description or order of added photos.Would be easier if users can read guidelines and follows it when creating new sets.
For the moment we don't have a functionality for searching sets.
Hello @Xavier , any news regarding the guidelines for sets? We, referees, are receiving more and more requests for new sets. Unfortunatelly, with a lack of guidelines, it's a very non-consistence in titles, description or order of added photos.Would be easier if users can read guidelines and follows it when creating new sets.
It would be easier to add links to completed pages that clearly demonstrate how it should be done, rather than referring people to guidelines.
For the moment we don't have a functionality for searching sets.
Hello @Xavier , any news regarding the guidelines for sets? We, referees, are receiving more and more requests for new sets. Unfortunatelly, with a lack of guidelines, it's a very non-consistence in titles, description or order of added photos.Would be easier if users can read guidelines and follows it when creating new sets.
It would be easier to add links to completed pages that clearly demonstrate how it should be done, rather than referring people to guidelines.
Don't you need to know the guidelines before you know "how it should be done?"
Maybe both would be a better option - As a former college lecturer I know that some people do not take information off a page of text as easily as they can interpret graphics, examples or pictures.
After seeing some sets with objects of Spain, the referees of Spain have been seen these problems:
The page of the set show the title in English or French, but the local name is not. For example: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/set.php?id=2264 Local name: Emisión Especial WMF 2010 Could the local name be displayed here?
Pages of objects included in many sets (for example: many years and one set for each year) have a long list of sets in the “Present in sets” section, like N#10856 Could this list be hidden with a "See more" button, like comment, examples and sales sections?
Wanted & swap list (euro coins & world coins, exonumia and banknotes circulated) https://goo.gl/AQjfKp - I have euro & world CC coins for swap.
At a minimum the ‘Present in sets’ list should come after the individual years/mints lists for less scrolling since the latter clearly is the primary use case………..but I like the idea of making it an expandable list that defaults to collapsed.
After seeing some sets with objects of Spain, the referees of Spain have been seen these problems:
The page of the set show the title in English or French, but the local name is not. For example: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/set.php?id=2264 Local name: Emisión Especial WMF 2010 Could the local name be displayed here?
Pages of objects included in many sets (for example: many years and one set for each year) have a long list of sets in the “Present in sets” section, like N#10856 Could this list be hidden with a "See more" button, like comment, examples and sales sections?
Totally agree with this.
Additionally, the order of the sets seems random. In the case of Spain, and as discussed in a Sets Topic, we've put the year first to make searching easier, but except for the year (which is still in order), the rest appear to be sorted randomly, rather than alphabetically, as would be ideal. See example:
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
The Royal Mint started to issue pre-decimal sets of so called ‘Historic’ coins with multiple dates a few years ago. There were also Euro coin cards issued around 2002 with different dates on the coins.
I have been following along this thread, and nice discussion so far, working out the problems and issues. Good idea to see if we can search for sets with the coins listed on numista already.
Now to see if the 2002 Canadian Specimen set has already been uploaded?
I have been following along this thread, and nice discussion so far, working out the problems and issues. Good idea to see if we can search for sets with the coins listed on numista already.
Now to see if the 2002 Canadian Specimen set has already been uploaded?
No it is not listed. Easy to check by looking on the one of coins included in this set. There is no 2002 specimen sets listed on the pages (I checked pages for 1$ and 25c).
I recently received a request for a similar set which I rejected because by all means it’s not an official set and it includes exonumia fake coins.
The user submitting this appealed the case and showed me the approved faroe set. So this is why I am asking, cause in my opinion these sets shouldn’t be added, and that’s how I understood the rules, but please confirm this to me.
We define sets as official packaging from the mint containing one or several numismatic items. It contains only new items (not repackaging of older coins). Sets include proof sets, mint sets, coincards, rolls, etc.
We just don't allow sets that were made by a different person or company than the mint or the issuing entity. Sets made by a third party from coins in circulation are not allowed.
The user submitting this appealed the case and showed me the approved faroe set. So this is why I am asking, cause in my opinion these sets shouldn’t be added, and that’s how I understood the rules, but please confirm this to me.
The Faroe set clearly belongs, as the set was issued by the mint making these fantasy coins. So even though these are not real coins, the set was not made by a third party.
For the Malta coins I do not know, as I recognize the packaging as a more generic third party type. Though with this kind of fantasy coins it is not always clear what the original looked like and if they were also repackaged … So it might well be that this was the original set package.
Just call me Bram
No new swaps for the moment, still too many half-ongoing swaps to clean up!
The set mentioned just above was submitted by me. They are part of an 8 coin set of Fantasy coins issued originally by the "International Numismatic Agency'.
I have many of these sets and have added lots of them to Numista.
This Malta set in particular has been removed from its original Blister/coincard folder.
I have edited the submission to remove any mention of the replacement folder I received it in.
I have added a comment to state it was issued by the "International Numismatic Agency'.
It is still a Set of 8 coins that should be allowed on Numista as a legitimate exonumia set.
The Original Folder can be added to the page by someone who has that at a later date.
Regards Mike
Master Referee - See my profile for what I collect.
It is still a Set of 8 coins that should be allowed on Numista as a legitimate exonumia set.
The Original Folder can be added to the page by someone who has that at a later date.
Regards Mike
Mike It for sure is a set (to be added to a series), but I could not yet find the “official” blister pack to be sure it belongs in the set series. Do you know if it exists in an original folder? B
Just call me Bram
No new swaps for the moment, still too many half-ongoing swaps to clean up!
I recently received a request for a similar set which I rejected because by all means it’s not an official set and it includes exonumia fake coins.
The user submitting this appealed the case and showed me the approved faroe set. So this is why I am asking, cause in my opinion these sets shouldn’t be added, and that’s how I understood the rules, but please confirm this to me.
I don't think exonumia sets should be allowed on Numista, unless they were issued by the government. (Like the miniature sets from Poland and Kazakhstan). The reason is, there is essentially an infinite amount of such sets. You can go on aliexpress/taobao/temu? (I guess, although never used it) and find tons of various souvenir sets of different medals. And you can even make your own tokens and make a set out of them.
I don't think exonumia sets should be allowed on Numista, unless they were issued by the government. (Like the miniature sets from Poland and Kazakhstan). The reason is, there is essentially an infinite amount of such sets. You can go on aliexpress/taobao/temu? (I guess, although never used it) and find tons of various souvenir sets of different medals. And you can even make your own tokens and make a set out of them.
I don't think the quantity of sets is a reason to disallow them. Numista allows exonumia items and there are huge numbers of exonumia types.
I like the suggestion made by someone earlier in this discussion (possibly made by several people): Allow “official” exonumia sets – sets made by the issuer of the exonumia pieces.
But what I would really like I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned (in the last ten minutes): Official Numista guidelines for sets.
Hello. The current definition of a Numista set is, “We define sets as official packaging from the mint containing one or several numismatic items. It contains only new items (not repackaging of older coins). Sets include proof sets, mint sets, coincards, rolls, etc.”
As there are no official guidelines created yet it will depend on the particular referee as to whether this type of set is allowed.
As there are no official guidelines created yet it will depend on the particular referee as to whether this type of set is allowed.
Thank you. Since it was the referee who recomended to post this question here, maybe it's time for a discussion and consensus decision making regarding such PNCs
As there are no official guidelines created yet it will depend on the particular referee as to whether this type of set is allowed.
Thank you. Since it was the referee who recomended to post this question here, maybe it's time for a discussion and consensus decision making regarding such PNCs
